Touching The Articles Of Their Faith, Laid Before Them By The Inquisition, For Recantation.

Continuing, said author relates, from Fox, some articles drawn up by the inquisition, with or besides the abovementioned edict; containing the principal tenets of the Wickliffites, which the inquisition placed before them for renunciation, or abjuration. They read as follows:

1. “That the mass or the worship which is performed before the holy cross, and is ordained by the whole church, is idolatry.

2. “That all who worship before the cross, commit idolatry, and are to be regarded as idolaters.

3. “That the real flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the sacrament of the altar after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration over them.

4. “That the sacrament of the altar is sacramental bread, without life, and only instituted in remembrance of the suffering of Christ.

5. “That the body of Christ, so-called, which is taken from the altar, is a figure of Christ’s body, as long as we see the bread and the wine.

6. “That the decrees and ecclesiastical ordinances of the prelates and the clergy, in the province of Canterbury, in their last assembly, held, with the consent of the King and the nobles, in the last parliament, against him who was recently burnt alive in the city of London, were not powerful enough to change the purpose of that martyr; because the substance of the material bread, in the sacrament of the altar, is the same as it was before, and no change is made, in the nature of the bread by consecration.

7. “That any layman, though he have not studied at College, has a right to preach the Gospel everywhere, and that he may teach (provided he has been properly elected thereto by his church, as has been stated elsewhere) upon his own authority, without permission from his ordinary bishop.

8. “That it is sin to give anything to the Dominicans, Minorites, Augustinians, and Carmelites.

9. “That we ought not to sacrifice at the funerals of the dead.

10. “That auricular confession of sins to the priest is unnecessary.

11. “That every good man, though he be unlearned, is a priest before God.

12. “That a child, though it die unbaptized, will be saved.”

Note.—This is putting down infant baptism out and out as of no value; since the papists were not ashamed to say, that it were better, that a whole country should sink out of sight, than that a child should die without baptism; maintaining, that all unbaptized infants would go to hell, and be eternally damned.

13. “That neither the Pope, nor the prelates, nor any ordinary, can compel any one to swear, either by any of God’s creatures, or by the Bible, or by the New Testament.”

Here it must be observed, that these people thereby denied all manner of swearing of oaths, not only that which is done by the creature, but also by the Creator himself; since even in England they did not, at that time, swear by the creature; but in the form of swearing this custom was observed by the papists, namely, he who was to swear, knelt down, and laid his hand upon the Bible, or the Testament, and said: “I swear by God and his holy Gospel, etc., so truly help me God.”

But who does not know, that the Gospel or the word of God is no creature? And though it be that in swearing the hand was laid upon the Bible, or upon the Gospel book, in token of the testimony, the swearing was not done by the material book; as also in our countries, when in swearing (among those who hold thus) the hand or the finger is held up, the swearing is not done by that hand or that finger.

Hence, said people were opposed not only to the manner of swearing, but to swearing itself, even though they have been required to swear, not by the creature, but by the Creator himself. Concerning this, see their own confession.

14. “That the bishop as well as a common man, and a layman as well as the priest, are of equal authority, as long as they live aright.

15. “That no one is bound to accord any bodily reverence (that is, by bending the knee and worshiping, as was then customary in England), to any prelate.”

These are briefly the chief articles which, according to the preceding decree of the King, and the ecclesiastical ordinance, or much rather inquisition of the archbishop, were laid before the Christians in England, for recantation. See large Book of Christian Martyrs, fol. 517, col. 3, 4, from John Fox, Hist. Angl. 485.

A. D. 1402.—About this time, Thomas Walsingham, a bitter papistic historian records some articles 323 of the abovementioned people, which, as he states, one Louis of Clifford, formerly a defender of the faith of these people, had discovered to the archbishop of Canterbury. The fifth of those articles reads as follows: “If they (the said people) had a new-born infant, they would not have it baptized in church, by the hands of the priest.” Thom. Wals., in Hist., Reg. Angl. and Hypodigmate Neustrie, A. D. 1402.

To this article several words are immediately added; but these are denied by a certain writer, who quotes said passage, and says, that the apostate, Louis of Clifford, in order to please the archbishop, or the bishop himself, surreptitiously added these words; therefore we will leave it as it is. A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 518, col. 1.

A. D. 1407.—Or about this time, William Thorpe, formerly an English priest, was apprehended for the faith, who, as it is stated, had been persecuted greatly already in the year 1397. He was charged with holding as his faith these five articles:

1. “That in the sacrament of the altar, also after the consecration, that is, after the priest has read the canon, it still remains real bread.

2. “That images are not to be worshiped, nor any honor shown them.

3. “That no pilgrimages ought to be made.

4. “That the priests have no right to appropriate the titles to themselves.

5. “That men ought not to swear.”

These articles are fully acknowledged to be his articles; but, in order to give them a somewhat different coloring, especially with regard to the article respecting non-swearing, some of the Calvanistic writers, one copying from another, as it seems, have made some expositions on them, as if William Thorpe himself replied to them, and signified by the words: “Men ought not to swear at all,” that he did not mean that men ought to refrain altogether from swearing; but only that one ought not to swear by the creature, neither trivially, as is especially maintained by the Calvinistic Mellinus, preacher in St. Anthony’s Polder, in his large book, 2d part, fol. 524, col. 2.

But other writers, of no less credibility and repute, flatly contradict this, saying positively that he rejected all manner of oaths.

Indeed, Mellinus himself, as if forgetful of what he wrote, indicates it quite clearly when he (page 519, col. 3), compares this William Thorpe, in faith, to William Swinderby, who, being burnt for the faith, at London, among others, confessed this article, which Walter Brute understood to defend, namely: “That it is not lawful for Christians to swear on any account, in any case, either by the Creator, or by his creatures.” A. Mell., 2d book, fol. 506, col. 3. This article is spoken of elsewhere.

Further observation.—In Kort Verhael van den Loop der Werelt, compiled from various chronicles and histories by F. H. H., A. D. 1611, the following is contained in the account relative to the swearing of oaths, page 99: “A. D. 1397, William Troppe, otherwise called W. Thorpe, was much persecuted in England, on account of his religion. He confessed that the sacrament of the altar remained true bread after the consecration, and that men ought not to swear.”

Touching the same matter.—P. J. Twisck writes: “William Thorpe, a priest in England, disputed earnestly with the priests of antichrist. He taught against images, the oath, the sacrament of the altar, and like abuses.” Chron., p. 758, col. 2.

Conclusion.—Hence, it appears from the preceding testimonies, that this man sincerely, plainly, and undisguisedly taught against oaths of whatsoever kind, according to the words of the Lord. Matt. 5:34, and James 5:12;190 to which more could be adduced; but we think enough has been said in the matter, and, hence, we will dismiss it.

A. D. 1412.—The loss to the Roman, and the upbuilding of the true Christian, church, were at this time facts existing in no small degree in the French country, around Paris, but particularly in that city itself; since various distinguished persons, and in point of learning not the least, did not hesitate to attack the Italian Babylon, that is, Rome, and her perverted worship; however, not with external, but with spiritual and evangelical weapons. Notwithstanding the hatred of the papal clergy, they dared openly reprove the errors and abuses of the Roman church. But whether they expressly mentioned, or otherwise included, the article of infant baptism among the number, is not clearly stated by the ancients; hence we must content ourselves with what they have written of it in a general way.

Note.—John of Ferrara, . . . in Italy, said about this time, among many other articles, that the Pope, by sheer violence, and without right, had seized countries and cities; that the clergy carried their conscience in their caps, and that they were more avaricious and worse than the laity; that the churches and monasteries of the clergy were nets with which to draw to themselves the property of the laity, etc. P. J. Twisck, Chron. for the year 1412, p. 770, col. 2.

Concerning this there is the following account: “At this time (A. D. 1412), also at Paris, various excellent, learned men rose against popery, pointing out the errors and abuses of the Roman church; by which they gained small thanks from the clergy.” Catal. Test., fol. 857, Meru., fol. 910, compared with the Chronijck van den Ondergang, p. 771, col. 1.

A. D. 1415.—At this time John Huss lived, who, having examined and studied the books and writings of John Wickliffe (of whom we said in the preceding century, that he opposed infant baptism, and the swearing of oaths), retained and accepted therefrom, among other articles, that it does not become a Christian to swear.

How and in what manner the writings of John Wickliffe fell into the hands of John Huss, and how eagerly he exercised himself therein, is described by A. Mellinus, 2d book, p. 495, col. 1; but that he ever, by this means or otherwise, learned the article of non-swearing, Mellinus, as well as other Calvanists, would deny, saying: “That which is imputed 324to him, regarding his unwillingness to swear, has respect only to the abjuration of his faith, or religion, but not to the oath itself.”

Besides that I have never found such an explanation in any credible writer of that time, though I have earnestly sought to investigate it; the circumstances of the matter itself, however, indicate that the article of non-swearing was one of the articles of his faith.