nor prelate whilest he is in mortall sinne, we graunt it is an errour.

That temporall Lordes may at their pleasure take away the temporall goods from churches offending habitualiter: We graunt it is an errour, after thys sense that they maye so take awaye temporall goodes of the churches without the cases limited in the lawes of the church and kyngdomes.

That the vulgare people may correcte the lordes offending at their pleasure: vnderstanding by this word may, that they may do it by the lawe: We graunt it is an errour, because that subiectes haue no power ouer theyr lordes, but contrarie.

That tythes be pure almes, and that parishioners may for the offences of their curates detayne the same and bestowe them to others at their pleasure: vnderstāding by this word may, as before, to may, by the law: we grautnt is an errour.

That speciall prayers applyed to any one person by prelates or religious mē, do no more profit, then þ^e general prayers, if there be no let by the way to make them vnlyke: Vnderstanding thys conclusion vniuersally negatiuely, and vnderstanding by special praiers, the praiers made vppon speciall deuotion and generall prayers of generall deuotion: then after this sense, no suche speciall prayers applyed to any one person, by speciall orators do profit more specially the sayd person, then generall praiers do, which are made of the same and for the same persons, we graunt it is an errour.

He that geueth almes to the fryers or to any fryer that preacheth, is excommunicate both he that geueth and he that taketh: Vnderstāding thys proposition vniuersally or condicionally as is aforesayd: We graunt to be an errour.

That who so entreth into any priuate religion, what soeuer, is therby made more vnapte and vnmete to obey the cōmaundements of God: We graunt it is an errour.

That such holy men as did institute any priuate religions what soeuer as well of secular hauing possessiōs as of fryers hauing none, in so instituting dyd sinne: Vnderstanding this reduplicatiuely or vniuersally: We graunt it is an errour. After this sense, that what Saint soeuer did institute priuate religions instituting the said religion vpon that consideration as they did, did sinne.

That religious men liuing in priuate religions, be not of the religion of Christ: Vnderstanding the propositiō vniuersally as is aforesayd: We graūt it is an errour.

That friers are bounde to get their liuinges by the laboure of their handes and not by begging: Vnderstāding thys proposition vniuersally as before: We graunt it is an errour.

These thinges haue we spoken reuerende father and Lord, in al humility, vnder your gracious supportation and benigne correction, according to our abilities & sclender capacities for this present (the honour of God, the veritie of our beleefe, and safe conscience in all poyntes reserued) more humbly yet beseching you. that if any other thing there be that seemeth meete vnto your excellency and discretion to be more or otherwyse sayde and spoken: that your gracious fatherhoode woulde vouchsafe to informe vs as children by the sacred scriptures, by the determination of the church, or autorities of the holy doctours: And doubtles, with ready wyls, and obedient myndes we wyll consent & agree vnto your wholsome doctrine. May it therefore please your fatherhood, right reuerend in God, according to the accustomed maner of your benignitye, fauourable to accept these our wordes and sayinges, for as much as the foresayd conclusions were neuer by vs eyther in scholes affirmed, or els in sermons publikely preached.

MarginaliaFurther examinations against the said. Nic. Phil. and Iohn.VVhen all these answers were made vnto the sayd L. Archbishop of Cant. the said Nicholas and Philip, for that they answered not vnto the meaning & wordesMarginaliaNico. Hereford, Phil. Repington Iohn Asheton examined. 20 Iunii. an. 1382.of the first conclusion expresly. But contrary to the sense of the decretall Firmiter credimus, were there iudiciallye examined what their sense and meaning was, but they would not expresse the same. Thē was it demaunded of thē according to þ^e sense of the same conclusion declared on the behalf of the sayd Lord of Cant. whither the same material bread, in numero which before þ^e consecration is layd vpon the aulter, remayne in þ^e proper substaunce and nature, after the consecration in the sacrament of the aulter: and lykewyse of the wyne? To this, the sayd Nicholas and Philip answered, that for that tyme they could say no more therein, then that they had alreadye answered, as is afore alledged in writing. And for that vnto the sense and wordes of the second conclusion they answered not fully and expresly, but in a sense contrary to the decrerall Cum Marthe: being asked what was the meaning, would not expresse the same. Therfore it was demaunded of them, according to the sense of the same conclusion, declared in the behalfe of the sayde Lorde of Canterb. whither those corporall accidences which formally were in the bread and wyne before the consecration of them: after the consecration, were in the same breade and wyne, or els were subiected in any other substance? To this they answered, that better to answer, thē that before in their writinges they already had, for that tyme they could not. To the meaning also and wordes of the third conclusion, for that they answered not plainly and expresly, but in sense contrarye to the decretall in the Clementines Si dudum, being asked what was that sense and meaning, would not declare the same: Wherfore it was then demaunded of them, accordyng to the sense of the same conclusiou, declared on the behalfe of the sayd Lord of Canterbury: Whether the same body of Christ which was assumpted of the virgin, bee in the sacrament of the aulter, secundum seipsum, euen as hee is, really, in carnal substāce, proper essence, and nature. To this they aunswered, that for that tyme they coulde say no more, then that they had sayd as before is specified in writing.

Furthermore, to the sense and text of the sixt conclusion, for that they answered not fully and expresly, being asked whither God ought any maner of obediēce to the deuill or not: they sayd yea, as the obedience of loue, because he loueth him, & punisheth him as he ought. And to proue that God ought so to obey the deuil, they offred themselues to the fire.

To the. xj. conclusion, for that they answered not expresly, beyng asked whither a prelate myght excommunicate any man being in the state of grace: sayd yea.

Vnto the. xx. conclusion, for that they aunswered not fully, simply, and expreslye, being demaunded whether speciall or generall prayers did most profit, and were of greater force? They would not say but that speciall.

Vnto the last conclusion, for that they answered neither simply nor expresly, and being demaunded particularly, whether any frier were bound to get hys lyuyng with his manuall labour, so that it might not be lawful for them to lyue by begging? They would make no answer at all.

MarginaliaThe iudgement of the doctors vp these articles.After that, the foresayd Lord Archb. of Canterb. demaunded of all the foresayd Doctors, what their iudgement was touching the answers that were made vpon all and singuler such conclusions. All which Doctors & euery of them seuerally, sayd: that all the answers geuē vnto the first, second, third, and sixt conclusiōs (as is before recited) were insufficient, hereticall and subtil: and that all the answers made specially, to the tenth, ninth, and last conclusions, as is aboue mencioned: were insufficient, erroneus, and peruers. Whereupon, the said lord Archbishop of Canterbury, considering the sayde aunswers to be hereticall, subtill, erroneous, and peruers, accordingly as the sayde Doctors (as is aforesayde) had