I. The first was the opinion of those wlio contended that the friars might not,

bj' the license of the bishop of Rome and of the prelates, preach in parishes and hear confessions.
And of this opinion was Gulielmus de Sancto A more, with his
fellows, who, as it is said, Averc condemned. These- II. The second opinion was this, that friars, although not by their own
cond opi- authority, yet by the privilege of the pope and the bishop, might preach and
hear confessions in parishes, but yet not without license of the parish priests.
Of this opinion was Bernard, glossing upon the canon, " Omnis utriusque sexus," before mentioned. The third III. The third opinion was, that friars might preach and hear confessions opitiion. ^vithout license of the parish priests ; but yet the said parishionei-s, notwith- standing, were bound by the canon, " Omnis utriusque sexus," to repeat the same sins again, if thej^ had no other, to their own proper curate.
Of this opinion were many, as Godfridus de Fontibus, Henricus de Gandavo, .lohannes Monachus Cardinalis, .Johannes de Poliaco ; which Johannes de Poliaco pope John XXII. caused openly in Paris to recant and retract. This Johannes de Poliaco,^ doctor of divinity in Paris, being complained of by the friars for certain articles or asser- tions, was sent for to the pope ; where, time and place being to him assigned, he, in the audience of the pope and of friarly cardinals and other doctors, was strictly examined of his articles. To make
(U Ex Clement cap. Dudum. (2) Ex libro fratris Engclbcrti.
THREE ASSERTIONS OF JOHANNES DE POLIACO. 755
tlic story short, lie, at length submittuig himself to the authority of Edward
the terrible see of Rome, was caused to recant his assertions openly _
at Paris : the assertions which he did hold were these. A. D.
First, that they who were confessed to friars, although having a general hcense —
to liear confessions, were bound to confess again their sins to their own parish g^^ertions jniest, by the constitution " Omnis utriusque sexus," itc. against
The second was, that the said constitution "Omnis utriusque sexus " standing the friais. in its force, the pope couhl not make away with, but parishioners were bound once a year to confess their sins to their priest. For the doing otherwise importeth a contradiction in itself.
The third was, that the pope could not give general license to hear confes- sions, but that the parishioner so confessed was bound to reiterate the same confession made, luito his own curate.
Which he proved by these places of the canon law, 25 quest, i. " QuJB ad perpetuam."' Those things which be generally ordained for perpetual utility, ought not to be altered by any change, kc. Item, the decrees of the sacred canons, none ought to keep more than the bishop apostolical, &c. Ibid. Item, to alter or to ordain any thing against the decrees of the fathers, is not in the authority or power, no, not of the apostolical see. Ibid.
fV. The fourth opinion was, that the friars, by the license of the pope and of The the bishops, might lawfully hear confessions, and the people might be of them op^i'j'j^^ confessed and absolved. But yet notwithstanding, it was reasonable, convenient, honest, and profitable, that once in the year they should be confessed to their curates (although confessed before to the friars), because of the administration of the sacraments, especially at Easter.
Of which opinion was Guliclmus de monte Lauduno. Henricus de Gandavo also held it not only to be convenient, but also that they were bound so to do.