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	house_n	65	3	6.4808	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