By this pope Boniface, a certayne Dominick Frier was made Cardinall  

named Nicholaus de Teruisio, and after the death of Boniface, was made also Pope. an. 1303. surnamed Pope Benedictus 11. Who seing the constituciō of Boniface his predecessor to gender dissension betweene the Prists and Friers, made an other constitution, beginning: Inter cunctas &c. MarginaliaEx Clemēt. inter cunctas.reuoking the constitution of Boniface his predecessour. MarginaliaIoan. Monach. reuoketh his glose.Vpon which constitution of Pope Benedict, Ioannes Monachus, make a Glose, reouked also his other Glose made vpon the constitution of Boniface before.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaPope Clement the 5. holdeth with the Fryers and repealeth the cōstitution of Benedictus. Ex Clement cap dudum. Again, after  

this Benedictus the 11. folowed pope Clement the 5. an. 1335. and sat 9 yeeres. Who in his generall Councell holden at Vienna, reuoked the constituion of Benedictus his predecessor, and renewed agayne the former decree of Boniface, by a uew constitution of his, beginning: Dudum a Bonifacio. 8. &c. Whiche constitution moreouer was confirmed afterwarde by Pope Iohn the 22. an. 1316. which Pope also caused Ioannes de Poliaco to recant.

[Back to Top]

Vpon this variable diuersi  

ty of the Popes (one dissēting and repugning from an other) rose among the Diuines & scholemen in Vniuersities great matter of cōtention, as well in the Vniuersity of Paris, as the Vniuersity of Oxford about the begging Friers, some holding one way, some an other way. But especially 5. principal opinions to be noted of learned men, who thē disputing against the freirs, were condemned for heretickes, and their assertions reproued.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaFiue diuers opinions of learned mē in this age holdyng against the Fryers. The first, was the opinion of thē which defended, that the friers might not by the licence of the Byshop of Rome and of the Prelats, preach in Parishes, and heare confessions. And of this opinion was Guliel. de Sācto Amore, with his felowes, who as is sayd, were condemned.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe 2. opinion. The second opiniō was this, that friers, although not by theyr own authority, yet by priuiledge of the Pope and of the Bishop, might preach and heare confessions in Parishes, but yet not without licence of the Parish Priestes. MarginaliaBernardus super cap. Omnis vtriusque.Of this opinion was Bernardus glosing upon the canō. Omnis vtriusque sexus, afore mentioned,

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe 3. opinion. The third opinion was, that friers might preach and heare confessions, without licence of the Parish Priestes: but yet the sayd parishners notwithstanding were boūd, by the Canon: Omnis vtriusque sexus: to repeate the same sinnes again, if they had no other, to theyr own proper curate: and of this opinion were many, as Godfridus de Fontibus: Henricus de Gandauo: Ioannes Monachus Cardin: Ioannes de Poliaco. MarginaliaIoan. de Poliaco.Which Ioannes de Poliaco, Pope Iohn the 22 caused openly in Paris, to recant and retract.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaEx libro fratris Egelberti. This Ioannes de Poliaco Doctor of diuinity in Paris, being complayned of by þ^e friers for certaine articles or assertions, was sent for to the Pope: where time and place being to him assigned, he in the audience of the Pope and of Frierly Cardinals & other doctors: was straitly examined of his articles. To make the story short, he at length submitting himselfe to the authority of the terrible see of Rome: was caused to recant his assertions openly at Paris. His assertions which he did hold, were these.

[Back to Top]

His three assertions.

MarginaliaIoan de Poliaco caused to recant by P. Iohn the 22.Whereof the first was, they which were confessed to friers, although ha- uing a generall licence to heare con- fessions: were bounde to confesse a- gayne their sinnes to their own Pa- rish Priest, by the constitutiō. Omnis vtriusque sexus. &c. MarginaliaThe 3. assertions of Ioan. de Poliaco against the Fryers.The second was, that the sayd cō- stitution, Omnis vtriusque sexus, stand- ing in his force, the Pope coulde not make: but parishners wer boūd once a yere to confesse theyr sinnes to their Priest. For the doing otherwise im- porteth a contradiction in it selfe. Marginalia25. q. 1. Quæ ad perpetuam. Contra statuta patrum condedere vel mutare aliquid nec huius quidem sedis potest autoritas.The 3. was, that the Pope coulde not geue generall licēce to heare con- fessiōs so, but þt the parishners so con- fessed were bound to reiterate þe same confession made, vnto his owne Cu- rate. Which he proued by these places of the Canon law. 25. q. 1. Quæ ad per petuam. Those thinges which be ge nerally ordeyned for publique vti litye, ought not to be altered by any chaunge. &c. Item, the decrees of the sacrat Canons, none ought to keepe more than the Bishop Apostolicall. &c. Ibidem. Item, to alter or to ordeine any thing agaynst the decrees of the fathers, is not in the authoritye or power, no not of the Apostolicall sea. Ibidem.

MarginaliaThe 4. opinion. The fourth opinion was, that the Friers by the licēce of the Pope and of theBishops might lawfully heare cōfessions, and the people might be of them confessed and absolued. But yet notwithstanding, it was reason, cōueniēt, honest and profitable, that once in the yeare they should be confessed to theyr curats (although being cōfessed before to the friers) because for the administration of Sacraments, especially at Easter. MarginaliaGuilielmus de monte Lāduno. Henricus de Gandauo. Of which opinion was Gulielmus de monte Landuno. Henricus de Gandauo also held, not onely to be conuenient, but also that they were bound so to doe.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe fift opinion. The fift opinion was, that albeit the Friers might at all times, and at Easter also, heare confessions as the Curates did: yet it was better and more safe, at the time of Easter to confesse to the curates, thē to the Friers. And of this opiniō was this our Armachanus, of whom we presently now entreat.

[Back to Top]

¶ And thus haue ye, as in a briefe summe opened vnto you, what was the matter of contention betweene the friers and the Church men. What Popes made with the friers: and what Popes made against thē. Moreouer, what learned mē disputed against them in Paris, and other places, and what were theyr opinions.

[Back to Top]

The matter of contention about the Friers, stoode in foure pointes. First preaching without licence of Curates, Second, in hearing cōfessions. Thyrd, in burying. Fourth in begging and taking of the people.

¶ Popes that maintened the Friers. ¶ Popes that mainteiued Curates
Were	Honorius.	3	Were	Innocentius.	3
	Gregorius.	9		Innocentius.	4
	Alexande.	4		Martinus.	4
	Clemens.	4		Benedictus.	11
	Boniface.	8
	Clemens.	5

¶ The learned men that disputed agaynst the Friers.
Were	Guilielmus de S. Amore. Barnardus super capitulum, Omnis vtriusque sexus. Godfridus de Fontibus. Henricus de Gandauo. Guilielmus de Landuno. Ioannes Monachus Cardini. Ioannes de Poliaco. Armachanus.	All these were cōdemned by the Popes, or els caused to recant.

MarginaliaEx libro cui titulus. Defensorium curatorum. These considerations and circūstaunces hetherto premised, for the more opening of this present cause of Armachanus susteined agaynst the idle beggerly sects of friers, in whom the reader may well perceiue Antechrist plainly reigning, and fighting against the Chruch: Now remayneth, that as I haue before declared the trauelles & troubles of diuers godly learned mē in the Church striuing agaynst the sayd friers, continually from the time of Guliel. de Amore, hetherto: So now it remaineth, that for so much as this our Armachanus labouring and in the same cause susteined the like conflict with the same Antechrist: we likewise collect and open his reasons and arguments vttered in the consistorye and in the audience of the Pope himselfe wherwith he maynteyneth the true doctrine and cause of the Church agaynst the pestiferous canker creeping in, by these friers after subtle wayes of hypocrisy, to corrupt the sincere simplicity of Christs holy fayth & perfect Testament. The which reasons and argumentes of his, with the whole processe of his doinges: I thought good and expedient for the vtility of the Church, more amply and largely to discourse and prosecute, for that I note in the sects, institutions, and doctrine of these friers, such subtle poyson to lurke: more pernitious & hurtfull to the religion of Christ and soules of Christians, then all men peraduenture do consider.

[Back to Top]

Thus Armachanus ioying with the clergy of England, disputed  

and contended with the friers here of Eng-