‘having no title to the possession of any property real or personal, private or common[514];’ the Minorites in following this example were in a state of ‘perfection,’ and lived a holier life than any other Order in the Church. The claim was generally admitted, and led to the exaltation of the Minorites in the eyes of the world at the expense of the other Orders[515]. As early as 1269 a controversy on this point arose between the convents of the two Orders at Oxford. A Dominican named Solomon of Ingeham accused the Minorites of receiving money either with their own hands or through a third party[516]. The Franciscans denied the charge and demanded the punishment of Friar Solomon. The Dominicans asked them to prove the falsehood of Solomon’s assertion and promised then to punish him. ‘The burden of proof,’ replied the Franciscans, ‘lies with you who affirm, not with us who deny.’ The Dominicans brought forward many instances in which they maintained that the Minorites had actually received money. These, answered the latter, were merely personal transgressions, and affected the community no more than any case of carnal sin or disobedience. The Dominicans, however, based their contention mainly on the argument that money bequeathed to the Franciscans must be received either by them in person or by intermediaries on their behalf. The Minorites answered ‘that, according to the definition of lawyers, money left by will is counted among the goods of the deceased until it passes into the _dominium_ and property of the legatee. But it cannot become ours by legal right or pass into our _dominium_ without our consent. Thus money, howsoever it may be deposited by the executors or committed to anyone for the brethren, is always counted among the goods of the deceased as long as it remains unspent, and the executors can, by their own authority or by that of the deceased, reclaim it at pleasure. How then can it be called ours?’ Peace was eventually restored by the interposition of the Chancellor and leading secular masters, at whose recommendation Friar Solomon withdrew his words. It is curious that neither the document containing the account of this quarrel, nor Peckham, mention the explanation which afterwards became the accepted theory, that the ownership of the goods of the Franciscans was vested in the Pope. Yet this explanation was originally given by Innocent IV in 1245[517].