194 OBSERVATIONS ON BISHOP BURNETT'S 
bishop chiefly owed his elevation to the primacy to the then power-— 
ful interest of the Duke of York ; a circumstance which rendered 
the supposition more probable with some, that he would willingly 
connive at the duke’s wish of frustrating the prosecution of the 
History of the Reformation. But, however the archbishop’s natural 
indecision of temper may have produced a vacillating species of 
conduct towards Burnett, it is a thing not easily to be credited, that 
he would have allowed either his well-known dislike to our histori- 
an, or the weight of his obligations to his patron, to lead him to an 
act as derogatory to his character as to his high station. 
That a very unjustifiable opposition was raised against the under- 
taking of Burnett, isa fact which cannot be denied or sufficiently 
reprobated. Yet, although his production took immediate hold of 
public favour and of public confidence—an event which he has per- 
haps too ostentatiously set forth in his numerous prefaces and intro- 
ductions*—it as soon became the object of repeated and severe ani- 
madversion. Bishops, tory clergymen, nonjurors, and laymen, suc- 
cessively laboured to demolish a monument, in honour of the Re- 
formation, which the voice of Parliament had pronounced to be a 
ations, or fits of admiration or dislike, which have so often influenced the 
higher appointments both in church and state, and therefore have need for 
better expounders than we can summon to our aid, to explain satisfactorily 
the true cause ofthem. Butsurely, in the present instance, we may receive 
for a fact the assertion of Wood, that the real motive for placing Sancroft on 
the archiepiscopal throne, was to exclude Compton, Bishop of London, from 
that situation, and who was so obnoxious to the Duke and the popish party. 
Now all this seems fit and proper, and in the due order of things. While 
human nature continues what it is, parties, like individuals, will not scruple 
to seek their own aggrandizement as far as may be consistent with prudence, 
nay, a great deal farther. Compton had, at that time, so much distinguished 
himself by his love of civil and religious freedom, as to acquire the name of 
the protestant bishop. The duke, therefore, thought, wisely enough, that the 
former prelate would be more easily brought to serve the purposes of arbi- 
trary power than the latter, and consequently recommended him for the pri- 
macy. Nor did he find out his mistake till Sancroft refused to read the 
noted declaration for liberty of conscience. The effectual and righteous 
stand then made showed that the new metropolitan was quite as ready to 
fight the battle of the constitution as the dreaded Compton. In alluding to 
Sancroft’s conduct upon this occasion, we cannot but observe that his name 
would have shone brighter in the page of history had not its lustre been 
afterwards dimmed by laying the foundation-stone of one of the most fatal 
schisms in the Anglican church. 
* © For the purpose of attracting and interesting the public in the history, 
we have no less,” says the author of the Speculum Sarisburianum, “than three 
new ones in about one year’s time.” 4 
