I am wondering how it came to pass, that this diminutive letter to Mr. Churchill should understand the business of introducing better than the Introduction itself; or why the Bishop did not take it into his head to send the former into the world some months before the latter; which would have been a greater improvement upon the solemnity of the procession?
Since I writ these last lines, I have perused the whole pamphlet (which I had only dipped in before) and found I have been hunting upon a wrong scent; for the author hath in several parts of his piece, discovered the true motives which put him upon sending it abroad at this juncture; I shall therefore consider them as they come in my way.
My Lord begins his Introduction with an account of the reasons why he was guilty of so many mistakes in the first volume of his "History of the Reformation:" His excuses are just, rational, and extremely consistent. He says, "he wrote in haste,"[8] which he confirms by adding, "that it lay a year after he wrote it before it was put into the press:"[9] At the same time he mentioned a passage extremely to the honour of that pious and excellent prelate, Archbishop Sancroft, which demonstrates his Grace to have been a person of great sagacity, and almost a prophet. Dr. Burnet, then a private divine, "desired admittance to the Cotton library, but was prevented by the archbishop, who told Sir John Cotton, that the said doctor was no friend to the prerogative of the crown, nor to the constitution of the kingdom." This judgment was the more extraordinary, because the doctor had not long before published a book in Scotland, with his name prefixed, which carries the regal prerogative higher than any writer of the age:[10] however, the good archbishop lived to see his opinion become universal in the kingdom.
[Footnote 8: Page 6.]
[Footnote 9: Page 10.]
[Footnote 10: This was Burnet's "Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland," dedicated to the Duke of Lauderdale, and published in 1672. The dedication contains an eulogium of the duke, and the work a defence of episcopacy and monarchy against Buchanan and his followers. At a later period, the author did not probably recollect this juvenile publication with, much complacence.
It is somewhat remarkable to see the progress of this story. In the first edition of this "Introduction," it should seem, "he was prevented by the Archbishop," &c. When the "Introduction" was reprinted a year after with the "History," it stands: "A great prelate had been beforehand and possessed him [Sir John Cotton] against me—That unless the Archbishop of Canterbury would recommend me—he desired to be excused—The Bishop of Worcester could not prevail on the Archbishop to interpose." This is somewhat less than preventing, unless the Archbishop be meant by the "great prelate." Which is not very probable. 1. Because in the Preface to this very third volume, p. 4, he says, "It was by Archbishop Sancroft's order he had the free use of everything that lay in the Lambeth Library." 2. Because the Author of "Speculum Sarisburianum" (p. 6), tells us, "His access to the Library was owing solely to the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft, as I have been informed by some of the family." 3. Because Bishop Burnet, in his "History of My Own Times," vol. i. p. 396, says it was "Dolben, Bishop of Rochester (at the instigation of the Duke of Lauderdale), that diverted Sir John Cotton from suffering me to search his Library." ["Miscellanies," vol. viii. 1745.]
The Bishop goes on for many pages, with an account of certain facts relating to the publishing of his two former volumes of the Reformation, the great success of that work, and the adversaries who appeared against it. These are matters out of the way of my reading; only I observe that poor Mr. Henry Wharton,[11] who has deserved so well of the commonwealth of learning, and who gave himself the trouble of detecting some hundreds of the Bishop's mistakes, meets with very ill quarter from his Lordship. Upon which I cannot avoid mentioning a peculiar method which this prelate takes to revenge himself upon those who presume to differ from him in print. The Bishop of Rochester[12] happened some years ago to be of this number. My Lord of Sarum in his reply ventured to tell the world, that the gentleman who had writ against him, meaning Dr Atterbury, was one upon whom he had conferred great obligations; which was a very generous Christian contrivance of charging his adversary with ingratitude. But it seems the truth happened to be on the other side; which the doctor made appear in such a manner as would have silenced his Lordship for ever, if he had not been writing proof. Poor Mr. Wharton in his grave is charged with the same accusation, but with circumstances the most aggravating that malice and something else could invent[13]; and which I will no more believe than five hundred passages in a certain book of travels[14]. See the character he gives of a divine, and a scholar, who shortened his life in the service of God and the church. "Mr. Wharton desired me to intercede with Tillotson for a prebend of Canterbury. I did so, but Wharton would not believe it; said he would be revenged, and so writ against me. Soon after he was convinced I had spoke for him, said he was set on to do what he did, and, if I would procure any thing for him, he would discover every thing to me[15]." What a spirit of candour, charity, and good nature, generosity, and truth, shines through this story, told of a most excellent and pious divine, twenty years after his death, without one single voucher[16]!
[Footnote 11: Henry Wharton (1664-1694-5), a divine, born at Worstead, Norfolk, and educated at Cambridge. Became chaplain to Archbishop Sancroft in 1688, and then rector of Chartham. Wrote "A Treatise on the Celibacy of the Clergy;" "The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in the Life of Ignatius Loyola;" "A Defence of Pluralities;" "Specimen of Errors in Burnet's 'History of the Reformation;'" "Anglia Sacra, sive Collectio Historiarum;" and "History of Archbishop Laud." The criticism on Burnet's "History" was written under the nom de guerre of Anthony Farmar. [T. S.]
[Footnote 12: Dr. Atterbury.]