190 OBSERVATIONS ON BISHOP BURNETT’S 
the disproportion between the offence and the punishment, that it 
is difficult to believe that, without some dark over-ruling agency, 
the learned author of the Monasticon could have voluntarily for- 
feited his own respectability and reputation by making so unheard 
of a request as the one couched in his singularly discreditable letter. 
That part of it where Dugdale alludes to a chief bishop having 
possessed him with prejudices against Burnett, as being no friend to 
the prerogative of the crown, or the constitution of the church, the 
inference is clear to the mind of the latter that Archbishop Sancroft 
was the originator of the impediment just mentioned. 
Yet, from a late view of the character, temper, and writings, of 
this eminent prelate, in a work peculiarly valuable from the impar- 
tial tone in which it is written, we must believe that Sancroft had too 
much of the real saint in his disposition, was too mild and amiable, 
and too sincere a promoter of religion, to be betrayed into an act 
which would have reflected indelible disgrace on his name. That 
something, however, like a slippery and shuffling movement, is to 
be detected in the archbishop’s attempts to prevent the consecration 
of Burnett in his appointment to a bishopric, is evident from the 
following statement, which shows the grounds that led our historian 
to speak of his ecclesiastical superior, in the History of his Own 
Time, with a nearer approach to acrimony than may be justifiable. 
But that he was the instrument of obstructing the formation of an 
historical work that promised solid and enduring excellence, is a 
charge not, without the strongest evidence, to be fastened on one 
who knew how to honour merit, both in his enemies and friends. 
to Burnett—services which he afterwards nobly rewarded with a pension* 
The modest spirit, too, of the following letter to Sir William Dugdale, an- 
swered by queries on his part, in that bristling tone of defiance, like one dis- 
posed to tilt at another in a sort of tourney of intellect, and from which it 
may reasonably be suspected that garter king at arms was not disposed to 
cenciliate the man whom he had wronged, is another proof how completely 
overcharged in expression are the conclusions of the above-mentioned writers 
respecting Burnett’s conceit and self-sufficiency. 
Sim,—I most humbly thank you for the great favour you have done me 
in sending me the enclosed remarks, which I return back to you, with the an- 
swer which I have writ to your queries. I desire nothing so much as to find 
out truth, and shall be very ready to confesse my mistakes as oft as any shall 
discover them to me. I doe esteem myselfe, in a very particular manner, 
bound ever to continue, Sir, 
Your most humble and obliged servant, 
G. Buryett. 
