_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.
[190] “But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” Matt. 5:34. “But above all things, my brethren, swear not.” James 5:12.
_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.