The HIS T 0 R Y of. the PuRITANS. ·VoL. If. K. CharlesI." principles; and that he had advifed the king to publitb a declaration,· ~" prohibiting the clergy to preach on the jive controverted points, by vir– " tue of which the mouths of the orthodox preachers were fiopt, and " fome that ventured to tranf8refs the king's declaration were puniihed in· " the high commiilion, when ~heir adverfaries were left at large to fpread " their opinions at their pleafure." .Abp's an· The archbifhop anfwered, that he had· not defended any points of ar– jwer., . miniani/m, though he heartily wiihed, for the peace of chriftendom, that. Lauds H1ft. h r ·d. ff fi d · h r 1 1 d · r. 2 t e1e 1 .crences were not pur ue Wit JUC.1 1eat an ammo1Jty. ~·,f,~n~. p. He confeifed that he had been taxed in a declaration of the houfe of 5.29. of commons as a favourcr of arminimzs, but without proof, and he took: it a very great flaHder. Ner had he to the beO: of his remembrance, advanced any fuch to ecclefiafl:ical livings; if they proved fo after-wards it> was more than he could forefee; but he had preferred divers orthodox mi– nifters, againO: whom there was no exception. He denied that he had a– ny hand in the preferment of Dr. Mame1aring or 1'\1ontague, who wew ~111der cenfure of parliament, nor is the pocket- book a fuHicient proof of it; he was of epinion, that Necde, Lind)i!y, Wren, Bancrqft,. Curie, and others mentioned in the charge, were wor.thy men, and every way quali– fied for their preferments, though it does not appear he had any band in Prynne, p. befiowing them. As for the king's declaration prohibiting the clergy to so·s. preach the jh;e points, it was his maje fty's own, and not his; and lince the publiihing of it, he had endeavoured to carry it with an t;qual hand,, and to puniih the tranfgrdfors of it on one.fide as well as M anagers· reply. Prynne, p. 529· the other.. The commons replied, that they wondered at the archbiihop's·aifurance in denying his endeavours to promote arminianifm in the church; that the remoniha.nce of the commons was a fufficient evidence of his guilt, be– ing confirmed by many proofs, though his anfwer to it proved fo full o£ bitternefs and faucinefs, as throwing fcandal on the whole reprefentative body of the nation. As to. the particulars, they fay that his preferring Mr. Downham and Tayfor orthodox. men, to.fome benefices, was only a blind to cover his advancing fo many popiihly affeCted clergy men. 'Tis known to all the world that Montague and Manwaring were his-creatures; .the pocket-book fays, that his.majefiy's royaL alfent to the p>eferment was iigned by orde> of this prelate (when only the biihop of London), and himfelf was the per– Con that confecrated them. It would be too long to go into particulars, but every body knows, that the difpofal of all, or moO: of the bifhopricks, deanries, and confiderable benefices·Jince the year. 1627. have been under the direCtion of this archbi(hop; and what for.t of perfons have been preferred 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=