1576 Edition | Book 5 | Page 434 
to periure the name of my God Wherfore sayth Eccle. 27. For nede many haue offended. And therfore they that chuse wilfull pouerty, taketh to hym great occasion of temptation.
3. Item, they that take willfull pouerty vpon them when they nede not, induce themselues voluntarily to breake the commaundement of God: Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house. &c. Agayne, where it is commaunded, there shalbe no begger among you. &c.
4. Item, he that taketh vpon him nedeles and wilfully to beg, maketh himself vnapt to receaue holy orders, hauyng (as is sayd) no sufficient title thereunto, accordyng to the lawes of the Church.
MarginaliaThe 8. conclusion of Armachanus againste the Friers. The 8. conclusion of this matter: That it is not agreyng to the rule of the Friers obseruant, to obserue wilfull beggery. Which (sayth he) may be proued, for that Frier Francis, both in hys rule and in hys Testament beyng left to his Franciscans, doth plainly preferre labour before beggyng.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe 9. conclusiō of Armachanus. Touching this booke of this masters of Paris condemned, looke pag 404. The 9. and last conclusion of this matter is. That the bull of Pope Alexander the 4. which condemneth the booke of the maisters of Paris, impugneth none of these conclusions premised. For the proofe therof, he thus inferred.
[Back to Top]1. First that Pope Iohn the xxiiij. in his constitution, beginning thus: Quia quorandam. MarginaliaEx Clement. Quia quorūd?.
Pope Nicolas the 3. reuoketh the Bull of pope Alexander the 4. affirmeth expresly, how Pope Nicolas the 3. reuoked and called backe the said bul of pope Alexander the 4. and all other writings of his: touching all such articles, which in the same foresayd constitution of this Pope Iohn be conteyned and declared. Wherin also is declared, how strait the pouerty of the Friers ought to be, which they call wilfull pouerty.
2. Item, it is manifest and notorious to all men, how the sayd Pope Nicholas the 3. in hys declaration sheweth, how the Friers both ought to labour with theyr handes, & how moreouer the sayd Friers ought not to preach within the dioces of any bishop, wheresoeuer they be resisted. Which beyng so, the conclusion appeareth, that the bull of Pope Alexander the 4. as touchyng these articles, is voyde and of none effect. Beside the which articles, there is nothyng els in the sayd Bull of Alexander (that I remember) which impugneth any of these conclusions premised.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe end and conclusion of this Oration of Armachanus before the Pope.
Ex defensoria curatorum. Many thyngs mo (sayd he) I had beside these, both to obiect and to aunswer againe to the same: and to confirme more surely and firmely these my reasons and assertiōs premised. But I haue already to much weried your holines, and your reuerend Lordships here present. Wherfore I cōclude and humbly and deuoutly besech you, accordyng to my former petition premised in the beginnyng of this matter: that you iudge not after þe outward face, but iudge ye true iudgement. Iohn. 7. Ex libro Armachani, cui titulus Defensorium Curatorum.
CloseIn these notes, which are entirely his own composition, Foxe's makes it clear why he devoted so much space to Fitzralph and the 'Defensio curatorum': Foxe regarded it as a faithful description of the corruption not only of the mendicant orders but of the entire medieval church.
MarginaliaNotes to be obserued.
Contrarietie among the Popes. BY this oration of Armachanus the learned prelate, thus made before Pope Innocent and his Cardynals, diuers & sundry thinges there be for the vtilitye of the church worthy to be obserued. First, what troubles and vexations came to the churche of Christ by these fryars. Also what persecution folowed after by the meanes of them, against so manye learned men & true seruantes of Christ. Farthermore, what repugnance and contrarietie was among the popes, & how they could not agree among them selues about the fryers. Forthly what pestiferous doctrine, subuerting welnere the testament of Iesus Christ. Fiftly, what decay of ministers in Christes church, as appeareth pag. 407. Sixtly, what robbing and circumuenting of mens children, as appeareth pag. 407. Seuently, what decay of vniuersities, as appeareth by Oxforde, pag, 407. Eightly, what damage to learning, and lacke of bookes to studētes came by these friars, as appeareth pag. 407. Ninthly, to what pride vnder colour of feined humility to what riches, vnder dissimuled pouertye they grew vnto, here is to be seene. In so much that at length through theyr subtile and most dangerous hipocrisie they crept vp to bee Lordes, Archbishops, Cardinals, & at last Popes also, Chā;celors of realmes, yea and of most secrete cūnsel with kings and queenes, as appeareth, pag. 408.
MarginaliaWhether the fryers make vp the bodye of Antichrist or not. All these thinges wel cōsidered, now remaineth in the church to be marked: that forsomuch as these Fryers (wyth their new found testament of fryer Frances) not being contented with the testament of God in his sonne Christ, begā; to spring the same time, when as Satan was prophesied to be let lose, by the order of the Scripture, whether therefore it is to be doubted, that these fryars make vp the bodye of Antechrist, which is prophecied to come in the Churche, or not: so much more to be doubted, because who so so list to try shal finde, that of all other enemyes of Christ, of whom some be manyfest, some be priuie, all be together cruell: yet is there no such sorte of enemies which more sleightlye deceiueth the simple christian, or more deeply drowneth him in damnation, then doth this doctrine of the Fryers.
[Back to Top]But of this Oration of Armachanus enough
CloseThe remaining biographical material on Fitzralph and the descriptions of those who oppossed him all come from Bale, Catalogus, p. 445.
CloseFitzralph died in Avignon (three, not seven or eight years) after he made his final voyage there, but he was not in exile. Rather he was prosecuting his case in the papal court against the mendicant orders.
MarginaliaEx Chron reg. Richard. 2. After the death of Armachanus, the Friers had contention likewyse with the monkes of Benedictes order, about the same yeare, 1360. and so remoued their cause both against the monkes and agaynst the vniuersitie of Oxford, vnto the court of Rome, wherin sayth the author, they lacked an other Richard. Ex Botonero. MarginaliaFriers agaynst the vniuersitie of Oxford. By this appeareth to be true, which is testified in the first tome of Wald. that lōg debate continued betwene the Friers and the vniuersity of Oxford:MarginaliaEnglishe writers against the Friers. Against whom first stood Robert Grosted bishop of Lincolne, aboue mentioned: Then Seuallus of Yorke. Afterward Ioannes Bachothorp, and now this Armachanus, of whom here presently we do entreat. And after hym agayne Iohn Wickliffe, of whom (Christ willyng) we wil speake hereafter. Ex Waldeno. MarginaliaFriers that write against Armachanus. Agaynst this foresayd Armachanus wrote diuers Friers, Roger Conawey a Frā;ciscā;, Iohn Heyldeshā; Carmelite, Galfridus Hardby frier Augustine. Also frier Engelbert a Dominican, in his boke intituled, Defensorum priuilegiorum, and diuers other.MarginaliaTestified by certayne Englishmen which are aliue & haue sene it. I credibly heare of certaine olde Irishe Bibles translated long since into the Irish toung, which if it be true, it is not other like but to bee the doyng of this Armachanus
CloseThis information about the Irish Bibles is Foxe's own addition to the account, as is his completely unfounded surmise that Fitzralph had something to do with them.
MarginaliaPope Vrbane. 5.
1360.
Vrbane c?plaineth that no promotiō would fall vpon him. After the death
CloseFoxe’s version of the sermon of Nicole Oresme is taken entirely from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strasbourg, 1562), pp. 512-519. Nicole Oresme (c. 1320-1382) was a cleric and scholar, most famous today for his writings on mathematics, astronomy and economics. He was also a protégé of Charles V and John the Good. In preaching this sermon to Urban V, Oresme was preaching to the choir; Urban vigorously tried to reform the abuses Oresme described. Ironically, the more reform-minded medieval clerics denounced ecclesiastical abuses, the more they supplied Foxe and Flacius with material to characterize the papacy and the medieval church as inherently evil.
[Back to Top]Thomas S. Freeman
University of Sheffield
CloseFoxe is taking his account of Urban V from Bale, Catalogus, pp. 437-8. Guillaume de Gimoard, who became Urban V, was a Frenchman with a distinguished career as a scholar and a diplomat. Because England, at this time controlled much of what is now south-western France, Guillaume’s father was an English subject, but he was not English.
[Back to Top]
CloseAt this time, the papal court was in Avignon, not Rome.
CloseThis description of the wars of Urban V comes from Sabellicus, in his Enneads (see Sabellicus, Opera omnia [Basel, 1560], cols. 817-21). Bale had referred to this account (Catalogus, p. 438), but he had not provided the details. Foxe felt that the issue of papal territorial aggression was sufficiently important for him to look up Bale’s source for himself.
[Back to Top]
CloseThis is Cardinal Gil Álvarez Caurillo de Albornoz, whom Pope Urban V placed in charge of restoring papal control over the papal territories in Italy. While the papacy was in Avignon, its control over central Italy had been lost..
CloseThis description of the wars of Urban V comes from Sabellicus, in his Enneads (see Sabellicus, Opera omnia [Basel, 1560], cols. 817-21). Bale had referred to this account (Catalogus, p. 438), but he had not provided the details. Foxe felt that the issue of papal territorial aggression was sufficiently important for him to look up Bale’s source for himself.
[Back to Top]
CloseEverything that follows to the end of Oresme’s sermon is a direct translation of Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Strasbourg, 1562), pp. 512-519.
CloseActually 1363.