Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	abbey_n	abbot_n	bishop_n	52	3	5.0973	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32245	The case and argument against Sir Ignoramvs of Cambridg by Robert Callis.	Callis, Robert, fl. 1634.	1648 (1648)	Wing C303; ESTC R14450	26,542	42

refuse their clarkes So I take it if I. S. present and it appeare to the Bishop that he have no right to the presentment The Bishop may refuse his clark And because this kind of Learning comes oft in practice and yet is difficult I shall therefore set down two or three cases to instruct a Bishop now and then how to get a laps by a straine of wit For I am of opinion at this time that if the Presentor have no right the Bishop may refuse his Clarke and in a quare impedit he may well excuse himselfe and may in some sort plead in chiefe to the right of the patronage And this opinion I doe both gather and maintaine by the cases ensuing and that is by 5. H. 7. fol. 34. where in a quare impedit brought against the Bishop the plaintiffe declared that he was seized of the advowson in Fee and presented on E. who was received instituted and inducted and that after the church became voyd by the death of E. and remained voyd by the space of 6. moneths and the defendant collated C. who was inducted thereunto and after the said church became voyd by the death of C. And that therefore now it appertaines to him to present and the defendant did disturb him The defendant pleaded that one I. S. did present the said C. unto him as ordinary and he did admit him and he was instituted and inducted into the church at the presentment of the same I. S. and traversed Absque hoc that C. was collated by him And this plea by the better opinion of the booke was good and yet it doth entitle I. S. by the presentment which was by disturbance and did disable the Plaintiffe thereby And thus the plaintiffe is disabled by the plea of the Bishop in point of right And In 22. H. 6 fol. 28. Sir Iohn Denhams case which is that one brought a Quare imp against the Bishop and one R. Chanon of St. Needs and declared that W. his Father was seised in fee of the Mannor of Hatland to the which the advowson of the Abbathy of St. Needs was appendent and that the Abby voyded by the death of A. and his Father presented B. who was admitted instituted and inducted at his presentation and that his Father dyed whereby the mannour and advowson descended to the Plaintiffe as next Heire and that the Abbey became void by the death of B. and so it belongs to him to present and he presented his covenable Clark to the Bishop defendent and he refused him The Bishop pleaded that the Abby of Saint Needs time out of memory had been a House of Abbot Prior and covent and that the Prior and covent have used when the Abbey became void to elect one to be Abbot and to present him to the Bishop and if he found him a covenable clark then he received him and caused him to be installed And he said that the Abbey became void and the Prior and Covent did elect the other defendant and presented him to the Defendant the Bishop and he found him covenable by reason whereof he admitted of him and caused him to be installed and so claimeth nothing but as Ordinary and by the direction of the Court he traversed the appendancy which is an excellent case for my purpose For hereby it appeares that the Bishop pleaded an Issuable plea to the Droit of the church And there is another case in 13. H. 7. fol the 18. where the Lord Hastings and the Lady Mary his Wife brought a quare Imp. against Sir Walter Hungerford and declared how Mompesson and others were seized of the advowson in grosse to the use of the Plaintiffs and they being so thereof seized graunted the Adowson to R. who regraunted the same to them and shewes a presentment and that the church became void c. now apperteineth for them to present and they presented their Clark And the Bishop one of the Defendants refused to rereceive him The patron the Bishop and the Incumbent joyned in a plea and pleaded and set forth that Mompesson and his other co-Feoffees were and stood seized of the Advowson to the use of Sir Walter Hungerford one of the Defendants and of his Heires Males of his bodie and he presented Absque hoc that the said Mompesson and other his Co-feoffees were seized to the use of the Plaintiffs which Plea no doubt was a good Plea for the Patron and also for the inducted incumbent since the statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 7. And I suppose that the Ordinary hath such an interest in the Church as that he may also plead thereunto For as it appeares the Patron and Ordinary in the vacancy may actually charge the church with a perpetuall rent-charg but not with annuity as I take it And althoughsome have held before me that he shall be but in case as a dissei for which can plead no plea to the tenancy as 26. Assis. 49. and 35 H. 6. 13. is The reason there is because he is taken in the Law to have no interest in the tennancy but an Ordinary surely hath some interest in the Church considering he and the Patron may charg the Church in the time of Uacation and he shall set Clark therein if a lapss come yet I am of opinion that if I. S. disseise I. D. of a Mannour to the which the Advowson of L. is belonging that if I. S. present to that Church the Bishop cannot upon penalty to be taken a disturber refuse the Clarke of I. S. unlesse that I D. doe also present for then he ought to receive his Clarke and my reason is because I. S. had right to the Advowson against all others but against the Disseisee by reason of the possession which is sufficient to close the hands of the Ordinary These cases I have put purposely to maintain the title of the Bishop because I hold that the refusall of the Clarke of the Feme Schismatique is not any sufficient cause but that she failed in point of right which by these cases is proved that the Ordinary might plead and justifie against her But to proceed a little further in this learning It is requisite for me to declare how and in what manner these causes of refusals ought to be shewen by the Bishop and how and before whom they shal be tryed It is plaine by Specotts case aforesaid that for the Bishop to excuse himself in a quare imp for refusing of a Clarke quia fuit Schismaticus inveteratus was no sufficient cause but he ought to have shewen in q' o quomodo and so by 9. of Eliz. in Dyer aforesaid that the Clarke was Criminosus without shewing certainly in what was insufficiently pleaded and the reason is because the Patron may take issue thereupon and if it be in cases of Schisme Heresy or other offences Ecclesiasticall the issue shall be tryed by the ArchBishop of the Province And this I have

observed out of 39. E 3. 1. and 40. E. 3. 20. Where a clark was refused by reason of nonability and tryed by the garden of the spiritualities Sede vacante Archiep But if the Clarke had been dead it should have been tryed per patriam and by 5. ● 2. A clark was deprived by sentence given at Rome because he was a miscreant and that was tryed per patriam because the Iudges could not write to any to try that issue So Outlawry death of a man and perjury in a temporall cause shall be tryed by Jury but perjury in an Ecclesiasticall cause shall be tryed by the Bishop ut constat per 38. E. 3. 3. Let these cases suffice for this matter because I would not be more tedious then my case doth afford me occasion Yet because some of the Gentlemen of the Bench and especially those of Lincolnes-Inne have argued much against the Bishops Title because he refused B. the Clark of Monsieur Avidus by reason he had a former benefice Sir Ignoramus because he was illiterate and gave no notice thereof to the Patrons which presented them But I shall give them a full answer thereunto which is First by the book of That if the Bishop refuse a Clark for nonability of literature if the Patron be a spirituall man which presented him the Bishop need not to give him notice thereof contrary if the Patron thereof be a Layman And the Vniversity is a learned Corporation which can of themselves as well take notice of the learning of the Clark as of his person which I take to be a sufficient answer to Sir Ignoramus and his Patron And the next reason shall extend to all the Clarks and Patrons also in my case except the King and his Clark and that I ground upon the said books of 22 H. 6. 8. 34. H. 6. which is that where divers persons do present severally their Clarks to the Bishop and he awardeth a Iure patronatus which is not determined but by reason thereof the 6. moneths passe as in our case yet in a quare impedit it shall be a sufficient plea for him to plead that the Church was litigious by reason of the severall clarks presented and so remained untill the 6 moneths were passed whereby he collated his clark And this shall be a good plea without setting forth the proceedings in the Iure patronatus and the spesciall verdict thereupon given So that I hope those Gentlemen which have argued for Monsieur plurality and for Sir Ignoramus will rest satisfied with this answer till I come neere the end of my case and then I hope I shall more fully resolve them that the Law is against their Clyents howsoever the exceptions were wittily and pertinently taken and so now I intend to proceed to the handling of the 8 point of my case The eight point of my case is whether the contract which E. made with Sir Symon Magus to further his institution be such a simony as shall cause E. if he had come in upon a good title to forfeit the Church as also to cause the said Sir Symon to loose his presentation hac vice and to forfeit the same to the crowne or not which is grounded upon the Statute of 31. Eliz. But this Statute seemeth plainly to distinguish betwixt Simony given or contracted for for and concerning the presentment and where it is concerning the Institution and Induction for where the Patron contracteth to have or take for the presentation he loseth his presentment and it is forfeit to the crowne But if the Clark contract or give any thing for to further his Institution he doth only loose the preferment of that Church and the Patron is to have the presentation and doth not forfeit it for the abuse of his Clark I grant that Simonicall contracts are detestable before God and man yet being so penall an offence It is fit it should be well proved ere the offendor be punished And I cannot perceive but that the presentment stood cleare without any touch of Simony And although Sir Symon was particeps criminis yet the crimen was only in the contracting for and concerning the Institution and not concerning the presentation and if it were agreed colourably before the presentation that Sir Symon should have nor take any thing for the presentation but only to further the Institution then I should take this concerning a Simony against Sir Symon upon this statute for many of the Gentlemen which argued the case doubted Sir Symon intended to defraud the Statute fearing because he was a branch sprung from so bad a Tree he could bring forth no better fruit Therefore I will defend his act no further but judging upon matters no otherwise then I see I cannot find any just cause in Law to entitle the King to the presentation nor to excuse Sir Symon of his unlawfull contract concerning the institution whereby the Clark did forfeit his preferment to the benefice If so be that the party with whom the Clark did contract had had power in the Institution as Sir Symon had not yet to further it with the Archdeacon may be Simony But now all this serveth well for the Eslie to maintaine his title by the lapse for seeing the Advowson passed from the Grauntor by his graunt and then the Vniversity could not have it by his recusancy nor the woman because if it had not passed yet it was setled in the Husband and if it were well transferred away by him then it vested in the Grauntee and that the multitude of presentments made the Church litigious even against him that had the very right and that there was no such simony in the case as might forfeit the presentment to the King then were the Bishops title by lapse the best but yet because I intend to bid them all to one selfe banquet I meane they shall all tast of the like cheere And therefore I plainely doe hold the Eslie which is the Bishop Elect to have no right nor title to collate by lapse and the reason is because he is not sacred and so wants that perfection which a Bishop ought to have that is to collate to a Benefice And in the handling of this point I must ground my argument upon the statute of 25. H. 8. cap 20. Whereby I doe gather that five things are requisite to the perfection of a Bishop 1. The first is a Conge de Eslier directed from the King to the Deane and Chapter by Letters patents giving them leave thereby to proceed to the Election of a Bishop 2ly The Election of the deane and chapter which is pro forma tantum for they are directed whom they must choose 3ly Then The certifying of their Election and the mandate directed to the Arch-Bishop and two other Bishops to proceed to consecration 4ly The consecration by the which he received the pall Benediction and Church ceremonies which enabled him in