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.