Full text: Volume (3 (1913))

358

H. W. C. Daris,

a date at which, a judge by whom, they had been acknow-
ledged. This English case-law, if it existed, was carefully
concealed from view by those who were conversant with it.
Mr. Ogle though proclaiming himself a loyal follower
of Stubbs, deserts the original position of bis master, and
argues that the independence of the medieval Anglican
Church is proved: a) by certain cases in which, as he alle-
ges, a decretal is set aside by a provincial Constitution;
b) by certain English customs which he regards as incom-
patible with the Jus Commune. It does not seem that he
has made good either of his point; but it is necessary that
we should justify this contention by reviewing the evidence
upon which he chiefly relies.
The provincial constitutione which he cites are three in
number; two of them were issued by Archbishop Peckham
(1279—1292) and the third by Archbishop Stratford (1333
—1348).
a) In 1279 Peckham published the Constitution Audi-
stis1) against pluralists. He explains that he is endeavou-
ring to reconcile a decree of the fourth Lateran Council
(1215) with a legatine Constitution of Ottobuoni (1268). The
net effect of those two ordinances, literally interpreted, was
to deprive the pluralist of all benefices. Peckham, rather
sophistically, argues that he is fulfilling the true intention
of either ordinance (mentem constitutionum . . clarius
advertentes) if he condemus existing pluralists to forfeit all
beneLces except the last. This was an audacious step; he
justifies himself to Pope Mcholas III.2), by saying that the
striet rule against pluralism had been generally disregarded
in England, and that he could not suddenly enforce it without
mitigation. The striet rule was contained in the decree
Ordinarii Locorum, which had been issued at the Council
of Lyons in 1274; and this decree Peckham had carefully
refrained from quoting on the point in question. How
Peckham justified the suppression we can only guess; but it
i» worth noticing that Ordinarii Locorum is in eikect a
re-enactment of previous legislation; it deprives the pluralist
of ali benefices that he holds unlawfully; and Peckham
*) Wilkine II, 33. — *) Peckham’s Registrum I, 137.

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.

powered by Goobi viewer