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]