Sec. VI. HIS NOMINATION TO THE SEE OF ARMAGH.
The see of Armagh became vacant by the death of David O'Hiraghty, which
took place, according to the _Annales Nenaghtenses_, on the 16th May,
1346. Dr. O'Hiraghty had been Dean of Armagh, and was elected by the
chapter of Armagh, _quasi per inspirationem divinam_, as John XXII.
mentions in the bull by which, on July 4th, 1334, he ratified the
election.[15] He was consecrated at Avignon, and having ruled his
diocese for nearly twelve years, died in 1346. On the 31st July, 1346,
Clement VI., _jure provisionis_, appointed to the vacant see Richard
Fitz-Ralph, then Dean of Lichfield. The bull of nomination contains that
the chapter of Armagh had already unanimously elected the same Richard,
and that he had given his consent to the election.[16] The Four Masters
place in the year 1356 the death of Farrell (son of Jeffrey) MacRannall,
Primate of Armagh and representative of St. Patrick. This, as Dr.
O'Donovan remarks, is evidently a mistake of the Four Masters, as
Richard Fitz-Ralph was certainly not one of the Mac Rannalls. We may say
that, besides the mistake in the names, there is also a mistake in the
dates. It was precisely in 1356 that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph set out upon
that visit to London which was the occasion of his controversy with the
Franciscans. The mistake made by the Four Masters is all the more
incomprehensible for this reason, that of all the primates who sat at
Armagh since the days of St. Francis of Assisi, no one was more likely
to be remembered by the Franciscans than Archbishop Fitz-Ralph.
Dr. Fitz-Ralph was consecrated at Exeter on the 8th of July, 1347, by
John Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, and three other bishops.[17] If this
date be correct, the Primate found himself engaged in the onerous duties
of his new office even before his consecration. On the 10th of April,
1347, Clement VI. appointed him, together with the Archbishop of Cashel,
to make inquiry on the part of the Holy See into some charges brought
against the Archbishop of Dublin by the Bishop of Ossory.[18] On the
12th of July of the same year he received faculties from the Holy See to
dispense in a case of invalid marriage, the parties belonging to the
diocese of Armagh.[19] The bishops of Ardagh and Cloyne were appointed
on the 29th August, 1347, to give him the pallium.[20]
Sec. VII. THE ACTS OF HIS EPISCOPATE.
One of the most striking characteristics of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph's
pastoral life was his assiduity in preaching the word of God to his
people. His sermons on the principal festivals, still extant in MS. in
the university libraries of Dublin, Oxford, and Cambridge, and in the
British Museum, would fill a large volume. Already as Dean of Lichfield
he had been remarkable for his fervour in preaching, but as successor of
St. Patrick in the see of Armagh, he seemed to have received a double
spirit of zeal and diligence. A volume of his sermons, once in the
possession of Ware, and lately purchased for the British Museum at the
sale of the Tenison library, includes sermons preached at Avignon,
London, Drogheda, Dundalk, Trim, and other places of the province of
Armagh. The fame of his eloquence preceded him to the Holy See, and when
at Avignon he was frequently admitted to the high honour of preaching
before the Holy Father and the cardinals and prelates of his court. He
loved to make our Blessed Lady's virtues the subject of his discourse.
_De Laudibus S. Deiparae_ is the title of many of his sermons. There are
also special sermons on her Conception, Visitation, and Assumption. His
sermons are generally constructed on a uniform plan. After quoting his
text, it was his custom to begin with some short prayer like the
following, which occurs in a sermon preached at Avignon on the feast of
All Saints, 1358: _Pro edificandi gratia impetranda, devote, si placet,
matrem gratiae salutemus, dicentes Ave Maria._ And in a sermon preached
before Innocent VI. on the feast of the Epiphany, after the text
_Videntes stellam Magi_, he begins with the invocation, _O Maria stella
Maris, Mater stellae solaris_. After the introductory prayer he repeats
the text in the vernacular, and then proceeds with the division of the
subject. In dividing his discourse he generally employs the rigour of
the scholastic method; each member of the division being complete in
itself, and forming as it stands a finished whole. Hence, the great
feature of his style is its singular clearness; a clearness which,
however, never becomes hard or cold, so tender is the unction that
pervades the entire. He appears to have had a singular devotion to St.
Catherine the Martyr and to St. Thomas of Canterbury, among the saints;
three or four different sermons are to be found in the collection in
honour of each. It is much to be regretted that those beautiful sermons
have never been printed.
Anxious to secure efficient pastors for his flock, he took care that his
clergy should have the benefit of the highest literary and
ecclesiastical training it was within his power to procure. With this
view he sent four of his priests to the University of Oxford, where he
himself had spent so many happy years of profitable study. He also
acquired for his diocese from the Benedictines of St. Mary of Lenley's
in Normandy, the priory and houses of St. Andrew in the Ardes, belonging
to that order. Besides this, he was diligent in visiting every portion
of his province. Among the rolls of Edward III., there is a letter of
28th April, 1356,[21] addressed by that King to the Archbishop, at a
moment that the latter has actually engaged in his visitation of the
diocese of Meath. Edward calls upon the Primate to return with all speed
to Dundalk to treat with Odo O'Neill, who was advancing upon that town
with a considerable army of Irish. Nor was it the first time that the
Archbishop's virtues enabled him to discharge the blessed office of
peacemaker in the disturbed state of society in which his lot was cast.
As far back as 1348 he had received from the King full powers to treat
for peace between the English and Irish.[22]
While careful of the spiritual interests of his diocese, Archbishop
Fitz-Ralph did not neglect to take care of its temporal concerns. He
justified to the letter the description given of him in the bull which
made him Archbishop: _in spiritualibus providum, in temporalibus
circumspectum_.
On January 11th, 1351, he received from Clement VI. a favourable answer
to his petition that he might be allowed to incorporate with the mensal
funds of his see the income of four churches with care of souls,
provided the ordinaries consented, and that the sum did not exceed the
annual value of one hundred marks. The petition of the Archbishop set
forth that the entire income of his see did not reach four hundred
pounds sterling per annum. On the same day the Pontiff issued letters
requiring the Abbot of St. Mary's in Dynelek (Duleek), the Prior of St.
Leonard's in Dundalk, and the Archdeacon of Armagh, together with the
chapter of the cathedral, to examine how far it would be useful to
exchange certain church lands, rents, and other immovable property, for
others, which the Primate judged more likely to be advantageous to the
see of Armagh.
Two documents preserved by Rymer show how careful Dr. Fitz-Ralph was not
to sanction by any act of his the claims made to the primacy by the
Archbishop of Dublin, to the detriment of Armagh. The first is dated 8th
December, 1350, and is an order from Edward III., that the Archbishop of
Armagh should not have his cross carried before him within the limits of
the province of Dublin. Archbishop Fitz-Ralph was unwilling to cause
disturbance by refusing to obey this order, but on the other hand he
felt that to comply with it fully would be to prejudice the legitimate
claims of his see.
He resolved in consequence simply to absent himself from Dublin. He
procured a royal license which excused him from personal attendance at
the parliaments held at Dublin, on the ground, that within the province
of Dublin he was not permitted to have his cross borne before him. In
1349 he was charged by the same king to plead in the royal name before
the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VI. for the grace of a jubilee on behalf
of the people subject to the English crown. In Oxford there is a MS.
entitled _Propositio ejusden (Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph Archiepiscopi
Armachani) ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III. in consistorio Domini
Papae, Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus Domino Regis populo obtinenda,
anno 1349_. A similar heading is prefixed to another _propositio_ of the
same prelate, which, as we shall see, he urged in person at Avignon in
1357. Pope Clement VI. was engaged in anxious efforts to restore the
oriental churches to union with Rome. The Armenians were in an especial
manner the objects of his paternal solicitude. The remarkable series of
questions which the Pope proposed to the bishops of that church are well
known in ecclesiastical history. It was, probably, during this visit to
the Holy See that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph became acquainted with the two
Armenian prelates, Nerses or Narses of Manasgarda and John, Bishop elect
of Clata, in Greater Armenia. These oriental bishops had long and
earnest conferences with their Irish brother on the sad state of their
once flourishing church, and at their earnest and oft-repeated requests,
the Primate resolved to contribute his aid to the great work of bringing
back the Armenians to unity. One circumstance connected with the
occasion, though it narrowed his field of argument for the time, has
given, nevertheless, to his writings a character which makes them
valuable in modern controversy. In his _Questiones Armenorum_ he was
forced to defend the Catholic doctrine almost exclusively from the Holy
Scriptures, seeing that his adversaries did not admit the authority of
the Roman Church. Hence his position as a controversial writer does not
differ from that which the Reformation has imposed upon modern
theologians since the time of Bellarmine.
Before the publication of Theiner's _Vetera Monumenta_, there was but a
single writer, Raphael of Volterra,[23] to assert that Archbishop
Fitz-Ralph had been created Cardinal. This solitary testimony, though
positive, was not considered by Ware and others strong enough to
counterbalance the negative argument drawn from the silence of all other
writers on the subject, and especially from the fact that upon the
elaborate catalogue of cardinals, drawn up by Panvinio and Ciacconio,
the name of Fitz-Ralph is not to be found. Among the documents published
by Theiner there is a consistorial process drawn up in 1517 on occasion
of a vacancy in the see of Ardagh,[24] in which mention is made, among
other glories of Ireland, of the Cardinal of Armagh, who flourished in
the year 1353. This is no other than our Archbishop Fitz-Ralph. It is
curious that the statement in this process is made in words almost
identical with those used by Raphael of Volterra. So close is the
likeness between the two statements that one is clearly copied from the
other. It is also to be observed that in the Papal documents he is never
styled Cardinal, and that even as late as October, 1358, Archbishop
Fitz-Ralph is styled by Innocent VI. simply Archbishop of Armagh,
although in the same letter the Pontiff makes mention of the Cardinals
appointed to examine into the questions at issue between our prelate and
the Mendicant Orders. However this may be explained, we have the weighty
authority of an official document drawn up at Rome and accepted by the
Holy Father himself, for believing that the see of Armagh was honoured
by the Roman purple in the person of Richard Fitz-Ralph.
Sec. VIII. HIS CONTROVERSY WITH THE MENDICANT ORDERS.
We now approach the grave controversy which was carried on for years
between our Archbishop and the Mendicant Religious Orders. Even if the
space at our disposal permitted it, we would not be willing to enter
here into a detailed account of the dispute.
Had it been given to Archbishop Fitz-Ralph to see as clearly as history
has enabled us to see, the blessings which our Church owes to the
heroism of the religious orders in the days of persecution, far from
opposing, he would have been the first to enlarge their privileges in
Ireland. But, as it was, it is quite clear that in his opposition to
them he was influenced solely by motives of an elevated nature. The
whole struggle was simply a domestic misunderstanding, and of such
character as that one may and must feel deep respect for both parties.
We cannot do better than lay before our readers the explanation of his
object and motives offered by the Archbishop himself to Pope Innocent
VI. in person, at Avignon, 8th November, 1357.[25]
"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen. 'Nolite judicare secundum faciem sed justum
judicium judicate' (_Joan._, cap. 7).
"Most Holy Father, I protest, at the very beginning of my
discourse, that I do not intend to assert or rashly to
affirm anything which may clash with Christian faith or
Catholic doctrine, and that it is not my intention to
solicit, or even to advise, the abolition or retrenchment of
the mendicant orders approved by the Church or confirmed by
the Sovereign Pontiffs. But rather, it is my desire that
these same orders be brought back to the purity of their
original institution, and in this, also, I am ever ready to
submit to the correction of your Holiness. And to approach
my subject without delay, coming to London, Most Holy
Father, about certain matters connected with my Church of
Armagh, I found a dispute going on between certain learned
doctors concerning the mendicant state and the mendicity of
Christ our Lord and Saviour. After repeated invitations to
preach to the people, I there delivered, in the vernacular,
seven or eight discourses, and, always under the above-made
protest, I defended in public nine conclusions, on account
of which, and for what else I then said, the friars have
appealed, though without reason, to this Holy See".
The visit to London here alluded to took place in 1356, and, as we have
seen, in 1357, the case was already under judgment at Avignon. For three
whole years the archbishop remained at the Holy See, while a
congregation of Cardinals, specially appointed for the purpose, took
cognizance of the dispute. No official decision was given, but as the
privileges of the mendicant orders were confirmed, and a letter sent to
the English bishops commanding them to not interfere with the friars, it
may be said that the Archbishop failed to make good his cause.
Sec. IX. HIS DEATH.
On the 16th November, 1360, according to Henry of Malmesbury, Richard
Fitz-Ralph slept in the Lord at Avignon. "Of whom", says Fox,[26] "a
certain cardinal hearing of his death, openly protested that the same
day a mighty pillar of the Church was fallen".
In Wadding's _Annals_, it is told that towards the end of his life,
seeing it was not likely he could succeed in his struggle, he withdrew
to Belgium, and there died in the mountains of Hannonia. The same
account appears in the Camden Annals of Ireland. But Ware[27] tells us
that the Armagh copy of these annals agrees with other histories in
placing the death at Avignon. In 1370, his remains were removed by
Stephanus de Valle (who from the see of Limerick was translated to that
of Meath by Urban V. in 1369), and brought back to his native town of
Dundalk, where they were desposited in the church of St. Nicholas. The
memory of his extraordinary merits soon attracted to his tomb crowds of
the faithful. The usage of styling him St. Richard of Dundalk became
quite general, and many miracles were ascribed to his intercession.
Moved by the report of these prodigies, Pope Boniface IX. appointed John
Cotton, Archbishop of Armagh, Richard Young, Bishop-elect of Bangor, and
the Abbot of Osney, near Oxford, as commissioners to institute a
judicial examination of the miracles. The result of their labours is not
known. Stewart, in his _History of Armagh_, mentions[28] that in a synod
held at Drogheda in 1545, it was ordered that the feast of St. Richard
of Dundalk should be celebrated in the diocese of Armagh with nine
lessons, in _crastino Joannis et Pauli_.
Sec. X. THE WORKS OF ARCHBISHOP FITZ-RALPH.
(A.) Printed works:--
1. (_a_) _Richardi Archiepiscopi Armachani, Hyberniae Primalis,
Defensorium Curatorum, adversus eos qui Privilegiatos se esse dicunt_,
habitum Avinione in consistorio coram D. Papa Innocentio VJ. et D.D.
Cardinalibus et Prelatis, anno Christi 1357, nunc recens excusum juxta
vetus exemplar et ex fide codicis MS. diligentissime castigatum.
Parisiis apud Joan. Libert, via D. Joan. Lateranens. e regione Auditorii
Regii, MDCXXI. pagg. 1-136.
(_b_) The same is printed in the _Appendix ad Fasciculum Rerum
expetendarum et fugiendarum_ opera et studio Ed. Brown Parochi
Sandrigiae in agro Cantiano. London: Chiswell, MDCXC. vol. ii. pag. 466
to 486.
(_c_) The same in Goldast's _Monumenta S. Romani Imperii_, vol. ii. p.
1391 to 1410.
2. _Summa Domini Armachani in quaestionibus Armenorum_, noviter impressa
et correcta a magistro nostro Joanne Sudoris, cum aliquibus sermonibus
ejusdem de Christi Dominio. "Jehan Petit, venales habentur in vico Divi
Jacobi sub lilio aureo ... quinsiene jour de Juillet mil cinq cens et
douse., fol. clxxvii."
As this is the most important of all the writings of Dr. Fitz-Ralph, and
as the printed book is very rare, it will please our readers to have a
more detailed account of its object and contents. The work forms a real
encyclopaedia of theological learning, and reveals the vast extent of
the author's studies and acquirements. The introduction runs as
follows:--
Reverendis in Christo patribus, Versi Manasgardensi, ac
fratri Joanni electo Clatensi Majoris Armeniae, Richardus
Radulphus Archiepiscopus Armachanus, Hiberniae Primas, per
gratiam sitire justitiam donec hauriatis aquas in gaudio de
fontibus Salvatoris. Ex revelatione Vestrae sanctae
devotionis accepi, ob defectum exercitii in Sacris
Scripturis antiquas quasdam hereses a Sanctis Patribus
reprobatas, et nonnullas contra S. Scripturas novellas
assertiones erroneas in vestris partibus pullulasse, propter
quas per doctores Latinos ex sacris Literis resecandas, eo
quia earum patroni auctoritatem Ecclesiae Romanae non
admittunt estimantes ejus auctoritatem ex Sacris Literis
probari non posse, ad Romanam curiam zelus domus Dei et
Christi charitas vos adduxit. Cum vero super ipsis erroribus
vobis cum ibidem aliquoties contulissem, meam exilitatem
devotius stimulastis ut super quaestionibus vestris illud
vobis scriberem quod mihi dignaretur Dominus aperire. Cui
Vestro tam accepto Deo desiderio resistere non audebam,
exactiones spiritualis usurae formidans, si de bonis a
Domino acceptis officium negligerem institoris, et juxta
ipsius promissa _qui evangelizantibus dat verba virtute
multa_ ardenter desideratis ampliora ob hoc recipite ut
abundem magis. Nec debent indignari mihi majores, ex quo
ipsi per quos melius perfici potuit illud penitus
neglexerunt, et ego cum vidua evangelica cupiam minuta, quae
habeo in Domini domum offerre, ipso teste confidens humilis
orationis suffragio amplius quam subtilitate ingenii
difficilia penetrare. Nec majorum correctionem renuo sed
affecto, et ipsum opus, (cujus titulem volui esse _De
quaestionibus Armenorum quod_ in xix. particulas sive libros
distinxi, singulis libris materiam fidei et ipsius causam
premittendo), approbationi et reprobationi nostri Papae
Patris Clementis VI. universalis Ecclesiae Summi Pontificis
in toto et in parte committo. In primis quinque libris illa
principalis quaestio Armenorum pertractabitur: numquid
Christus habuit in se duas plenas naturas, scilicet, divinam
et humanam ita quod propter unionen illarum duarum naturarum
in ipso fuit Dominus IESVS Christus veraciter suppositum,
persona, sive hypostasis in utraque natura verus Deus et
verus homo.
Primus itaque liber contra heresim Nestorianam, a quodam
Nestorio introductam, affirmantem in Christo naturam humanam
duntaxat, ita ut Christus homo fuerit et non Deus; quam
heresim secuti sunt Cherintus, Armerintus, Theodocio, et
etiam excaecati Judaei, et multae Orientalium nationum usque
in prasens, patefacto primitus quis sensus sit literalis
Sacrae Scripturae censendus, ex Scriptura N. T. juxta sensum
literalem ipsius ostendit Christum quem colimus esse Deum.
Secundus liber contra Judaeos specialiter ex V. T. juxta
literalem sensum ipsius, probat Christum sive Messiam in sua
Scriptura promissum Deum esse debere.
Tertius liber ex eadem V. Scriptura ostendit Christum
nostrum quem colimus esse sive fuisse illum qui erat Judaico
populo in ipsa Scriptura promissus.
In quarto libro tractantur objectus Judaici populi contra
ostensa in lib 2'o et 3'o et dantur et probantur in ipso
regulae certae istos objectus, et omnes alios objectus
Judaicos dissolvendi.
In quarto libro contra heresim Arii et Apollinarii
affirmantem quod in Christo anima humana non fuit,
divinitas loco animae in Christo erat: ad hoc, contra
heresim Manichaei dicentis Christum non verum corpus humanum
sed corpus fantasticum habuisse Scripturae testimonia
adducuntur, et consequenter contra heresim ponentem corpus
humanum in Christo fuisse et divinitas veluti indumentum ac
vestem sicut in angelis cum corpora humana assumuni; et
contra heresim Dioscori affirmantis naturam humanam in
Christo in divinam fuisse mutatam ex utroque Testamento
testimonia proferuntur.
Sextus liber ex Scripturis utriusque Testamenti ostendit
Spiritum Sanctum a Filio sicut a Patre procedere, quod a
Grecis et ab Armenis plerisque negatur.
Septimus liber probat ex Scriptura quod Romana Ecclesia sit
caput totius Ecclesiae Christianae.
Octavus liber de Sacramento baptismi et ejus forma plures
Armenorum quaestiones absolvit.
Nonus liber de Sacramentis Corporis Christi et Sanguinis,
Confirmationis et Unctionis plures quaestiones eorum
tractat.
Decimus liber de modis illicitis, conferendi et acquirendi
et detinendi dona Dei gratuita ac praeposituras Ecclesiae
quaestiones eorum pertractat, et an requiratur gratia Dei ad
habendum dominium.
Undecimus[29] liber de potestate absolvendi simplicis
sacerdotis, et de punitione animarum hominum impiorum ante
finale judicium quaestiones ipsorum dissolvit.
Duodecimus liber quaestiones Armenorum pertractat de
beatitudine animarum quorumdam justorum et de purgatione
aliquarum animarum ante finale judicium.
Liber decimus-tertius, quem propter Athanasium Graecum qui
negat Purgatorium adjeci, quatuor pertractat articulos, de
satisfactione, debita pro peccatis in vita et etiam post
hanc vitam.
Liber decimus-quartus tractat quaestiones Graecorum et
Armenorum de visione nuda atque clara divinae essentiae a
vere beatis quam negant plerique eorum.
Liber decimus-quintus objicit contra auctoritatem nostrae
Scripturae per contingentiam futurorum praenuntiatorum in
ipsa quae possint non fore, et occasione cujusdam novelli
erroris asserentis omnia futura ex necessitate sive
inevitabiliter evenire, quare offendit libertatem
contradictionis in voluntate humana tam ex physicis
scripturis quam ex divinis in multiplici ratione, et
contingentiam futurorum.
Liber decimus-sextus ponit tres de pretactis objectionibus
acceptis de infallibilitate scripturae divinae, a divina
praescientia immutabili, a voluntate divina omnipotente
invincibili et etiam efficaci; et solvit eosdem ex propriis
principiis evidenter ostendens contingentiam futurorum et
libertatem contradictionis voluntatis divinae et humanae.
Liber decimus-septimus residuos sex ponit objectus de Dei
cooeperatione speciali cum voluntate hominum operante; de
sustentatione rerum intrinseca ab omnipotenti divina
potentia; de divina cooeperatione generali eum omni agente
creato; de necessitate eventus actuum intrinsecorum
nostrorum, etc.
Liber decimus-octavus ostendit auctoritatem Legis Antiquae
et Novae, et probat utrumque Testamentum ex lege Saracenorum
firmari; et cum in multiplici ratione affirmat Legem nostram
traditam in suis majoribus articulis non fuisse aut esse
corruptam.
Liber decimus-nonus comparat Legem nostram quoad sacramenta
et ceremonias cum lege Judaeorum. Pertractat etiam de
miraculis Apostolorum, et ostendit Legem nostram robur
amplius habere quam ratio naturalis, aut aliqua secta
gentilium et hoc totum opus consummat.
Quia vero per interrogationem et responsionem modus tradendi
videtur multis facilior, licet sit aliquantulum prolixior,
unum de nostris, mihi discipulum predilectum, quasi mecum
disputantem accepi. Ita ut Joannes vicem gerere quaerentis,
et Richardus intelligatur vicem gerere docentis licet potius
respondentis. Vos igitur, Reverendi Patres, opus accipite
quod petistis, orationis si placet mercedem mihi pensantes
pro labore hoc.
(B.) Works in Manuscript:--
1. (_a_) _Summa contra Armenos_, lib. xx., fol. 126, xc. New College.
Oxford.
(_b_) _Responsio de Armenorum Heresi_, fol. 218, xviii. Lincoln Coll.,
Oxford.
(_c_) _Armachanus de Questionibus Armenorum_, Cod. 250, n. 4. St.
Benedict, Cambridge.
(_d_) _Scriptum Armachani de Questionibus Armenorum_, Cod. 224.
Pembroke, Cambridge.
(_e_) _Richardi Armachani lib._ xix., _Questionum adversus Armenos_.
Trin. College, Dublin.
2. _Ricardi Radulphi Armachani Opus in P. Lombardi sententias_ in
questiones xxix. distributum, praevio sermone super idem. xv. Oriel
College, Oxford.
3. (_a_) _Ricardi Rad. Armachani, Propositio facta in consistorio coram
Domino Papa et Cardinalibus ac Prelatis super materia mendicitatis ac
privilegiorum mendicantium contra Fratres de ordinibus quibuscunque,
apud Avinion. die 8 mensis Novemb. Anno Domini MCCCLVIII._, _fol._ 54,
xxxviii. Magdal. Coll. Oxford.
(_b_) _Propositio ejusdem facta in consistorio coram Papa, Cardinalibus
et Prelatis, ad utilitatem cleri ac populi Christiani super materia
mendicitatis ac privilegiorum contra fratres de ordinibus mendicantium
quibuscunque apud Avinion. 8 Nov. 1357_, fol. 184. St. John Bapt.,
Oxford.
(_c_) _Ric. Filii Radulphi, Archiep. Cantuar._ (sic) _sermo habitus
Avinionae viii. die mensis Novembris A.D. 1357, in istud Nolite judicare
secundum faciem_, etc., fol. 53. Corpus Christi Coll., clxxxii., Oxford.
4. _Propositio Ric. Armachani ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III., in
consistorio D. Papa Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus D. Regis populo
obtinenda, anno 1349_, fol. 177. S. J. Bap., Oxford.
5. _Rich. Fil. Rad. Armachani de paupertate Christi_ libri septem, cum
prologo ad Innocentium Papam VI. et titulo capitulorum cuique libro
praevio, fol. 143. King's Coll. Oxford, cxviii.
6. _Objectiones ejusdem contra seipsum in Materia de Mendicitate et
aliis cum suis solutionibus_, fol. 196, S. Q. B., lxv. Oxford.