mon law of all
Christendom before the Reformation of the Anglican Church."

2. As to foreign particular constitutions in England, there are a great
number of them, of which it has been and is admitted, that they have
currency in England. However papal in their origin, post-Reformation
lawyers have regarded them as valid, unless they can be shown to be
contrary to the king's prerogative, or to the common or statute law of
the realm. To this doctrine express statutory authority (as the events
have happened) has been given by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, sect. 7. A
striking example of the doctrine is furnished by the decree of Innocent
III. in the Fourth Lateran Council against pluralities. This decree was
enforced in the court of Arches against a pluralist clerk in 1848
(_Burder_ v. _Mavor_, I Roberts, 614). The courts of common law from
Lord Coke's time downwards have recognized this "constitution of the
pope" (as the queen's bench called it in 1598). The exchequer chamber,
in 1837, declared it to have "become part of the common law of the land"
(_Alstan_ v. _Atlay, 7 A._ and _E._ 289).

3. The particular constitutions of English synods are numerous and cover
a large field. At least in legal theory, the only distinction between
pre-Reformation and post-Reformation constitutions is in favour of the
former--so long as they do not contravene the royal prerogative or the
law of the land (see 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19). The most important are
collected together and digested (so far as regards England) in
Lyndwood's _Provinciale_, a work which remains of great authority in
English courts. These constitutions are again divided into two classes:
(a) provincial constitutions promulgated by provincial synods, usually
in the name of the presiding archbishop or bishop; and (b) decrees of
papal legates, Otho in 1236 and Othobon (Ottobuono de' Fieschi,
afterwards Pope Adrian V.) in 1269. Canons passed since 25 Hen. VIII. c.
19 have not the parliamentary confirmation which that act has been held
to give to previous canons, and do not necessarily bind the laity,
although made under the king's licence and ratified by him. This
doctrine laid down by Lord Hardwicke in _Middleton_ v. _Croft_ (2
_Stra_. 1056) was approved in 1860 in _Marshall_ v. _Bp. of Exeter_
(L.R. 3 H.L. 17). Nevertheless, there are many provisions in these
post-Reformation canons which are declaratory of the ancient usage and
law of the Church, and the law which they thus record is