Touching the Articles of their Faith, Laid before Them by the Inquisition

Continuing, this author relates, from Fox, some articles drawn up by the inquisition, along with or besides the above-mentioned 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 instituted only 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 the man who was recently burned 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 has not studied at college, has a right to preach the Gospel everywhere, and that he may teach (provided he has been properly elected to it by his church, as has been stated elsewhere) on 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 is unlearned, is a priest before God.

12. "That a child, though it dies unbaptized, will be saved."

NOTE. This puts down infant baptism out and out as of no value; since the papists were not ashamed to say that it would be better for a whole country to sink out of sight than for a child to 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 anyone 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, the man 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, and so on, so truly help me God."

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

Hence, these people were opposed not only to the manner of swearing, but to swearing itself, even though they were 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 rightly.

15. "That no one is bound to give 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 the large Book of Christian Martyrs, folio 517, columns 3 and 4, from John Fox, Hist. Angl. 485.

In the year 1402. About this time Thomas Walsingham, a bitter papistic historian, records some articles of the above-mentioned people, which, as he states, one Louis of Clifford, formerly a defender of the faith of these people, had disclosed to the archbishop of Canterbury. The fifth of those articles reads as follows: "If they (the said people) had a newborn infant, they would not have it baptized in church, by the hands of the priest." Thom. Wals., in Hist., Reg. Angl. and Hypodigmate Neustrie, in the year 1402.

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

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

1. "That in the sacrament of the altar, even 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 about nonswearing, some of the Calvinistic writers, one copying from another, as it seems, have made some expositions on them, as if William Thorpe himself replied to them, and meant by the words: "Men ought not to swear at all," that he did not mean that men ought to refrain from swearing altogether, but only that one ought not to swear by the creature, nor trivially, as is especially maintained by the Calvinistic Mellinus, preacher in Saint Anthony's Polder, in his large book, second part, folio 524, column 2.

But other writers, of no less credibility and repute, flatly contradict this, saying plainly 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, column 3) compares this William Thorpe, in faith, to William Swinderby, who, being burned for the faith at London, confessed, among others, 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., second book, folio 506, column 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., in the year 1611, the following is contained in the account relating to the swearing of oaths, page 99: "In the year 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., page 758, column 2.

Conclusion. Hence it appears from the preceding testimonies that this man sincerely, plainly, and openly taught against oaths of every kind, according to the words of the Lord. Matthew 5, verse 34, and James 5, verse 12;* to which more could be added; but we think enough has been said in the matter, and so we will leave it. [n492-2]

In the year 1412. The loss to the Roman church, 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 to reprove openly the errors and abuses of the Roman church. But whether they expressly mentioned the article of infant baptism among them, or otherwise included it, 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 the property of the laity to themselves, and so on. P. J. Twisck, Chron. for the year 1412, page 770, column 2.

Concerning this there is the following account: "At this time (in the year 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., folio 857, Meru., folio 910, compared with the Chronijck van den Ondergang, page 771, column 1.

In the year 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 from them, 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 applied himself to them, is described by A. Mellinus, second book, page 495, column 1; but that he ever, by this means or otherwise, learned the article of nonswearing, Mellinus, as well as other Calvinists, would deny, saying: "That which is imputed to him, regarding his unwillingness to swear, has respect only to the abjuration of his faith, or religion, but not to the oath itself."

Besides the fact 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 nonswearing was one of the articles of his faith.