MarginaliaArticles with the answeres. That the accidents doe not remaine wythout the subiect after consecration of the Sacrament.

After the sense contrary to that Decretall Cum Marthe, We graunt that it is heresie.

That Christ is not in the sacrament, the selfe same truly and really in hys owne corporall presence.

Although this conclusion as the words stand sound to be probable and intelligible: yet in the sense cōtrary to the decretal in Cle. Si didum. We graunt that it is heresy. And briefly concerning this whole matter of the Sacrament of the aulter as touching also all other thyngs, we professe that we will both in worde and sense, holde wyth the holy Scripture, with the determination of the holy church and sayings of the holy doctours.

Obstinatly to affirme that it hath no foundation in the Gospell that Christ ordained the Masse.

We graunt that it is heresie.

That God ought to obey the deuill.

In this sense that God in hys owne person or essence, ought to obey the deuil with the obedience of necessity.

We graunt that it is heresie.

If a man be duely contrite, that all externall confession is to him superfluous and vnproiftable.

We graunt tht it is heresie.

If the pope be a reprobate & an euill man, and consequētly a member of the deuil: He hath no power ouer the faithful of Christ, giuē to him of any, vnleast it be of Cesar.

We graunt that it is heresie.

That after Pope Vrbane the 6. none is to be receyued for Pope, but that wee ought to liue after the maner of the Grecians vnder our owne lawes.

We graunt that it is heresie.

To say that it is against the holy Scripture for ecclesiasticall persons to haue temporall possessions.

If obstinacie be ioyned withall: wee graunt that it is heresie.

That no Prelate ought to excommunicate any man, vnles he know him before to be excommunicate of God.

We graunte that it is an errour. Vnderstandyng thus knowledge to meane an experimental knowledge: so that heerewith may stand the Decree of the Church. II. q. 3. Nemo Episco.

That he which doth so excommunicate, is thereby an hereticke or excommunicate.

After the sense agreeing w^t the other before, we graunt to be an errour.

That a Prelate excommunicating a clerke, whych appealeth to the king or counsell of the realme, in so doing is a traitor to God, the king, and the realme.

We graunt it is an errour.

That they whych leaue off to preache, or to heare the word of God & the gospel preached, for the excommunication of men, are excommunicate: and in the day of iudgement shalbe counted for traytors to God.

Vnderstanding this cōclusion vniuersally so, as scripture and lawes do vnderstand such indefinit propositiōs: We graunt it is an errour.

To affirme that it is lawful for any Deacon or Priest, to preach the word of God without the authority of the sea Apostolique or catholique Byshop, or of any other whose authority he knoweth sufficient.

We graunt it is an errour.

To afirme that there is no ciuile Lord, no Bishop nor Prelate whilest he is in mortall sinne, wee graunt it is an errour.

That temporall Lordes may at their pleasure take away the temporal goodes from churches offending habitualiter: We graunt it is an error, after this sense that they may so take away temporall goodes of the churches wythout the cases limited in the lawes of the Church and kingdomes.

That the vulgar people may correct the Lordes offending at their pleasure: vnderstanding by thys word may, that they do it by the law: We graunt it is an errour, because that subiectes haue no power ouer theyr Lordes,

That tithes be pure almes, and that parishioners may for the offences of their Curates detaine the same and bestow them to others at theyr pleasure: vnderstanding by thys word may, as before, to may, by the lawe: We graunt it is an errour.

That special prayers applied to any one person by prelates or religious men, do no more profit then the general praiers, if there be no let by the way to make vnlike: Vnderstanding thys conclusion vniuersally negatiuely, & vnderstanding by special prayers, the prayers made vpon special deuotion and general praiers of general deuotion: then after this sense, no such special prayers applied to anyone person, by special orators do profite more specially the said person, then general praiers doe, which are made of þ^e same and for the same persons, we graunt it is an errour.

He that geueth almes to the friers, or to any frier that preacheth, is excommunicate both he that geueth, & he that taketh: Vnderstanding thys proposition vniuersally or conditionally as is aforesayd: We graunt to be an errour.

That who so entreth into any priuate religiō what so euer, is thereby made more vnapt and vnmete to obey the commaundements of God: We graunt it is an errour.

That such holy men as did institute any priuate religions whatsoeuer, as well of secular hauing possessions, as of friers hauing none, in so instituting did sinne: vnderstanding thys reduplicatiuely or vniuersally: Wee graunt it is an error. After thys sense, that what Saint soeuer dyd institute priuate religiōs, instituting the sayd religion vpon that consideration as they did, did sinne.

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

That friers are bound to get their liuings by the labor of their handes and not by begging: Vnderstanding this propositiō vniuersally as before: We graūt it is an errour.

These things haue we spoken reuerend father & Lord, in all humility, vnder your gracious supportation and benigne correction, according to our abilities & slender capacities for this present (the honor of god, the verity of our belief, and safe cōscience in all poynts reserued) more humbly yet beseeching you: that if any other thing there be that semeth meete vnto your excellency & discretion to be more or otherwise said & spoken: that your gracious fatherhood would vouchsafe to informe vs as children by the sacred scriptures by the determination of the church, or authorityties of the holy Doctours. And doubtles with redy wils, and obedient mindes we wil consent and agree vnto your wholsom doctrine. May it therfore please your fatherhode right reuerende in God, according to þ^e accustomed maner of your benignity, fauourably to accept these our wordes and sayings, forasmuch as the foresayde conclusions were neuer by vs either in scholes affirmed, or els in Sermons publikely preached.

MarginaliaFarther examinations against the sayd Nic. Phil, and Iohn. Nick. Herford. Phil. Repington. Iohn Asheton, examined. 20. Iunij. an. 1382. WHen all these answers were made vnto the said lord Archb. of Canterb. the sayde Nicholas and Phillip, for that they aunswered not vnto the meaning and words of the first conclusion expresly: but contrary to the sense of the decretall Firmiter credimus, were there iudicially examined what their sense and meaning was, but they wold not expresse the same. Then was it demaunded of them according to the sense of the same conclusion declared on the behalfe of the sayd Lord of Cant. whether the same materiall bread in numero, whych before the consecration is laid vpon the aulter, remaine in the proper substance and nature, after the consecration in the Sacrament of the aulter, and likewise of the wine? To this the said Nicholas & Phillip aunswered, that for þ^t time they could say no more therein, then that they had already aunswered, as is afore alledged in writing. And for that vnto the sence and wordes of the second conclusion,they aunswered not fully and expresly, but in a sence contrary to the Decretall Cum Marthe, beyng asked what was þ^e meaning, would not expresse the same. Therfore it was demanded of them according to the sense of the same conclusion, declared in the behalfe of the sayde Lord of Caunterbury, whether those corporall accidences which formally were in the bread and wine before the cōsecration of them: after the consecration were in the same bread and wine, or els were subiected in anye other substaunce: To this they aunswered, that better to answere, then before in theyr writinges they already had, for that time they could not. To the meaning also and wordes of the third conclusion, for that they aunswered not playnly and expresly, but in sense contrary to the decretall in the Clementines Si dudum, being asked what was that sense and meaning, woulde not declare the same: Wherefore it was then demaunded of them according to the sense of the same conclusion, declared on the behalfe of the sayd Lorde of Canterbury. Whither the same body of Christ whiche was assumuted[illegible text] of the Virgine, be in the sacrament of the aulter, secundum se ipsum, euen as he is really in carnall substance, proper essence, and nature. To this they aunswered, that for that time they could say no more then that they had sayd, as before is specified in writing.