Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-nvqbz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-08T20:43:40.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

VII: Edmund Wood (1841–1932)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2025

Robin Ward*
Affiliation:
Principal of St Stephen’s House, Oxford, UK

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Rediscovering Anglican Priest-Jurists
Copyright
© Ecclesiastical Law Society 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mascall, E, Saraband (Leominster, 1992)Google Scholar.

2 C Gray, ‘In Memoriam Canon EG Wood’, The Church Times (London, 30 December 1932), 815.

3 Mascall (note 1), 71–72.

4 Wood, E, The Regal Power of the Church or the Fundamentals of the Canon Law (Cambridge, 1888)Google Scholar.

5 Wood, E, The Regal Power of the Church or the Fundamentals of the Canon Law, With a Preface and a Supplementary Bibliography by E Kemp (Westminster, 1948)Google Scholar.

6 Wood (note 5), vi.

7 Gray (note 2), 815.

8 Wood (note 4), 111.

9 Ibid, 64.

10 Ibid, 1.

11 Ibid, 10.

12 Ibid, 11.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid, 17.

15 Ibid, 19.

16 Ibid, 19–20.

17 Ibid, 24.

18 Ibid, 100–105.

19 Skinner, J, A Synopsis of Moral and Ascetical Theology (London, 1882)Google Scholar.

20 That is, a political conception within the Roman Catholic Church that advocates for supreme Papal authority in matters of faith and discipline.

21 Wood (note 4), 29.

22 Ibid, 31–32.

23 Ibid, 33.

24 Ibid, 34–35, 37. See further, Middleton v Crofts (1736) 26 ER 788, which held that the laity are not bound by the canons of the Church of England.

25 On the issue of law binding conscience see further Doe, N, ‘Robert Sanderson (1587–1663)’ (2022) Ecc LJ 6886Google Scholar.

26 Wood (note 4), 39.

27 Ibid, 44.

28 Ibid, 45.

29 Ibid, 48.

30 Ibid, 48–49.

31 Ibid, 49.

32 Ibid, 50.

33 Ibid, 51.

34 Ibid, 52–53.

35 Ibid, 55.

36 Ibid, 61.

37 Ibid, 62.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid, 64.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid, 64–65.

42 Ibid, 65.

43 Ibid, 65–66.

44 Ibid, 70.

45 Ibid, 71.

46 Ibid, 71–72.

47 Ibid, 72.

48 Ibid, 77.

49 For a further discussion the role of custom in ecclesiastical law see Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law, 4th edn (Oxford, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, paras 1.37–1.38, who cites the key cases of Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17 at 53–56 and Re St Mary, Westwell [1968] 1 WLR 513, Commissary Ct.

50 Wood (note 4), 78–84.

51 Kirk, K, Ignorance, Faith and Conformity (London, 1933), Google Scholar.

52 Wood (note 4), 85–88.

53 Ibid, 100.

54 Ibid, 102.

55 On which, see further Doe, N, ‘Pre-Reformation Roman Canon Law in Post-Reformation English Ecclesiastical Law’ (2022) Ecc LJ 273294Google Scholar.

56 Wood (note 4), 107.

57 Ibid, 109.

58 Wood (note 5), 85–86.

59 Reichel, O, The Elements of Canon Law (London, 1887)Google Scholar. Another comparator would be Robert Owen’s The Institutes of Canon Law (1884)Google Scholar, discussed further in Doe, N, ‘Robert Owen (1820–1902)’ (2019) Ecc LJ 5468Google Scholar, see 60–66. As Doe explains, at 60, Owen is critical of the books on English church law from that time ‘which he sees as either “ever in humble vassalage to the Statute Law”’.

60 Clarke, WL and Harris, C, Liturgy and Worship (London, 1932)Google Scholar.

61 Kemp, E, Darwell Stone Churchman and Counsellor (Westminster, 1943), Google Scholar.

62 Kemp, E, Counsel and Consent (London, 1961)Google Scholar.

63 Kemp (note 61), 112.

64 Kemp, E, An Introduction to Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1957), Google Scholar.

65 Wood (note 4), 59.

66 Bouyer, L, Life and Liturgy (London, 1956), Google Scholar.