Furthermore, to the sense and text of the first conclusion, for that they aunswered not fully and expresly, beyng asked whether God ought any maner of obedience to the Deuil or not: they said yea, as the obedience of loue, because he loueth him, and punished him as he ought. And to proue that God ought so to obey the deuill, they offered themselues to the fire.

[Back to Top]

To the 11. conclusion, for that they aunswered not expresly, being asked whither a prelate might excommunicate any man being in the state of grace: said yea.

Vnto the 20. cōclusion, for that they answered not fully, simply, and expresly, being demaunded whether special 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 aunswered neyther simply nor expresly, and being demanded particularly, whether any frier were bounde to get his liuing wyth his manuall labour, so that it might not be lawfull for them to liue by begging? They would make no aunswere at all.

MarginaliaThe iudgement of the doctors vpon these articles. After that, the foresaid Lord Archb. of Cant. demaunded of all the foresaid Doctors, what their iudgement was touching the answeres that were made vpon all & singular such conclusions. All which doctors and euery of them seuerally, sayd: þ^t there all the answeres geuen vnto the first second, third, and sixt cōclusions (as is before recited) were insufficient, hereticall and subtill, and that all the answeres made specially to the tenth,ninth, and last conclusions, as is aboue mentioned; were insufficiēt, erroneous and peruerse. Whereupon the Lord sayd Archbishop of Caunterbury, considering the sayd aunsweres to be hereticall, subtill, erroneous and peruerse, accordingly as the said Doctors (as is aforesayd) had wayed and considered: admonished the said Nicholas and Phillip sufficiently, vnder these forme of wordes.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAdmonition and citaon of the Archb. against the examinates. The name of Christ being called vpon  

: we William by Gods permission, Archbishop of Canterbury, Metropopolitane of al England, and Legate of the Apostolique see, and through all our prouince of Caunterbury, Inquisitor of all heretical prauitie: do sufficiently and lawfully admonish and cite you Nicholas Herford and Phillip Kepingdon professors of Diuinitie, hauing this day and place assigned you by your own consent and our prefictiō, peremptorily to answere and to say, fully and playnely your opinions touching these conclusions whereunto we do referre you (all subtill, sophisticall, and Logicall wordes set apart) being therunto sworne, cited & commanded: Which thyng to do, without cause reasonable or any licence geuen thereunto, you neither haue bene willing nor are willing, nay rather ye contemptuously refused to aunswere to some of those conclusions before vs iudicially, according to the effect of our monition, citation and commaundement before sayd. But for that, ye haue aunswered vnto some of them heretically, and to other some erroneously, although not fully, we admonish and cite you once, twice, and thrice, and that peremtorily: that plainely and fully (all subtile, sophisticall and logicall wordes set apart) you and euery of you answer, vnto the same conclusions, and vnto that sense and meaning by vs limittted: vnder the payne that otherwise such conclusions deserue by you confessed, and that for the same conclusions you ought to haue.

[Back to Top]

Which admonition being made and done, for that the foresayd Nicholas and Phillip woulde make none other answere: The said Lord archbish. of Caunterbury concluded that busines, prefixing and assigning vnto the foresayd Nichalas and Phillip 8 dayes space, that is to say, vntill the 27. day of the same month: MarginaliaAn other day assigned for the examinates to appeare. And that then they shoulde appeare before the sayd Lord Archbishop of Canterbury whersoeuer within the same his prouince of Caunterbury he shoulde fortune to be, to heare his decree that shoulde be made in that behalfe. This done, the foresayd Archbish. of Caunterbury, monished and cited lawfully and sufficiently, Iohn Aishton vnder the tenour of these wordes following.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaProcesse made by the Aarchb. against Iohn Asheton. In the name of God  

: we William by Gods permissiō, Archb. of Cant. Primate of all England, Legate of the see Apostolicall, and through all our prouince of Cant. of all heretical prauitie chiefe Inquisitour: do monish & cite thee, Iohn Asheton maister of arte, and student in diuinitie appearing before vs, iudicially to say and speake the playne veritie touching these conclusions to the which we doe referre thee: and to the which we haue caused thee to sweare, laying thy hand vpon a booke: as being also otherwise by vs admonished and commaunded to keepe this daye and place by vs appointed, for the third :ime peremptorily, to propone such reasonable cause (if thou hast any) whereforethou oughtest not to be pronounced an hereticke. And sufficiently and lawfully we monish and cite thee, the first second and third, and that peremptorily, that thou, fully and playnely (all subtill, sophisticall, and logicall wordes set apart) doe aunswere vnto the same conclusions, vnder the payne that vnto such conclusions belong & on thy part confessed, and that thou for suche conclusions oughtest to suffer. Whiche monition, being thus premised: MarginaliaI. Asheton seuerally examined.The sayde Archbishop read the first conclusion, and of the sayd Iohn inquired what was his opinion and meaning therein, and hereupon he said his minde concerning the foresayd monition. Then, the foresiad Iohn Asheton being often required by the archbishop that he woulde aunswere in the Latine tongue to those questions which were demaunded of him, because of the lay people that stood about him: MarginaliaThe Archb. and his Friers doe flee the English tongue for the people.he crying out into the Englishe tongue, vttered friuolous and approbrious contumelies to moue and excite the people against the said Archbishop as it should seem. Neyther did he vnto the first conclusion nor vnto any of these other conclusions,effectually and pertinently seeme to them to aunswere: but rather by the subtilties, & shiftes, saying oftentimes and as expresly as Luke said, it was sufficiēt for him to beleue as the holy church beleued. Then the said Archbishop examined him vpon the first conclusion touching þ^e Sacrament of the aulter: whether, that after the wordes of consecration, there remayneth materiall bread particuler bread, or vniuersall bread? MarginaliaWhether materiall bread remaine in the sacrament.He sayde the matter passed his vnderstanding, and therefore said: he woulde in that forme and maner aunswere and otherwise not. But amongest other things, he spake in deriding wise vnto the said Archb. against this worde Materiall, saying, you may put that in your purse if you haue any. Whereupon the said Archbishop, calling that an vnwise and foolishe aunswere as the rest of the doctors did (of whome mention was made before) rather for that he was a graduat in the schooles, farther proceeded against the said Iohn Asheton in this wise.

[Back to Top]

And thou Iohn Asheton monished and commaunded by vs as is aforesayd, after thine oth taken: without anye reasonable cause or any other other licence, neither wouldest thou nor yet will, but refused and yet doest contemptuously, to aunswere vnto such conclusions before vs, iudicially according to our monition & commandement aforesad doe hold all such conclusions by thee confessed, & thee the foresaid Iohn with all thy said conclusions, conuicted. And therfore we do pronounce and declare by sentence geuing, that thou Iohn Ashton cōcerning those cōclusions, which by vs with good deliberation of diuers prelates our suffraganes, and also diuers and sondry professours of diuinitie, and other wise men and learned in the lawe according to þ^e Canonicall sanctions, being condemned and declared for an hereticke and hereticall: to haue bene and still is, an hereticke, and thy conclusions heretical. And as touching thy other conclusions by vs hertofore counted erroneous, and for erroneous condemned: we doe pronounce and declare sententially by these our writinges, that both thou hast erred and doest erre.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Tho. Hilman suspected to be a fauourer of I. Asheton. The 20. day of Iune. Vpon the same 20. day of Iune in the yeare and place aboue recited: the foresaid Lord of Caunterbury being desirous, as he pretended to be informed by Thomas Hilmā bacheler of diuinitie there being present and somewhat fauouring the said M. Iohn Asheton what his iudgement & opinion was touching þ^e foresaid conclusions: MarginaliaDayes geuen to Tho. Hilman to answere.prefixed and assigned vnto the said Thomas (for that time demaunding the same deliberation and day) 8. dayes after, that is to say, the 28. of the said month: that he appeare before the Bishop of Cant. wheresoeuer within his said prouince of Canterbury, he should then happen to be, to declare playnely and fully what his iudgement and opinion was, touching the foresaid conclusions. Ex Regist. W. Courtney.

[Back to Top]

Friers Obseruantes, Botlesham B. of Nauaton, frier Iohn Langley, William Suard.

Friers of Dominickes order, Iohn Kyngham, Iohn Louey, Peter Stokes. Walter Dish.

Friers Carmelites, Thomas Ashburn, Baukine, Robert Walbey.

Doctors and Fryers Augustines, M. Iohn Barnet, M. Thomas Backton, M. Iohn Blanchard, M. Iohn Shillingford, M. Lyndford, M. Thomas Southam.

Marginalia28. day of Iune. an. 1312. Friday next following  

, that is to say, the 28. day of Iune: the foresaid M. Nicholas, Phillip, and Thom. Hilman, appeared before the said Archb. and lord Inquisitour of Canterbury, in the chappell of his manor of Otfurd, in