il's cannon ball in Milton. Not anything could have been more expressive.' Immediately on the receipt of your Defence I gave it to Millar, who has caused it to be reprinted, tho' like your Observations under another printer's name, he being Printer in ordinary to the Episcopal propagators, and it will be published in a few days, I hope with tolerable exactness. In this second publication Millar has again behaved handsomely, in more respects than one. Here in England few tracts sell well, and have a general currency, unless of an extraordinary and taking nature indeed, that exceed a shilling in purchase, on which account conciseness, or brevity with clearness should at all times, on all subjects, be particularly affected and studied. Of this new edition I have the honor to send you four copies. I likewise send you three copies of a very artful tract, 'semblance of worth not substance,' intitled 'An Answer to Dr. Mayhew's observations on the charter and conduct of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts,' which tract I suppose your bookseller, or some of your friends may have already conveyed to you. I am confident it is written either by the A[rch] B[ishop] himself, or by one of his chaplains or Dependents, with very great corrections by him. I was going to have added, that I had had the honor to be acquainted with that prelate above twenty years, and apprehended myself to be not altogether unacquainted with his stile of writing and conversing. Also, that since his elevation to the Primacy, and the observation that he left Popery unnoticed, wide spreading, intolerant, overturning Popery, and yet prosecuted with bitterest severity, Anet, [Peter Annet], a poor old speculative Philosopher, that he showed no hearty affection to Liberty of any sort, nor those men who loved it; that he trod with glee the mired Court paths; and juggled

for Fame with his own order, who yet would never grant it him, knowing him well to be an Irregular and Interloper amongst them from the Medical Tribe; I had declined in my visits to him: and that now, on further observation of his plan and views in regard to America, and the extreme poorness of his conduct in having fixed a Spy upon you, for ever, himself, in the center of your Land; and his general actions and connections everywhere; I had determined, pass me the boldness of the expression, to drop him wholly." He also gave warning that he had been informed that "some very severe strictures are about to be published" on the Observations, intimating that the author was probably some creature direct of the A[rch] B[ishop]'s; or some Formalist, who yearns after preferment, and seeks it hard by writing after the System and Passions of his chief; and many things may be written by a learned artful man, in such a controversy, not altogether without speciousness and plausibility."

To this Mayhew replied, June 24, 1764: "I have before had intimations of the A. B.'s concern in the aforesaid Answer to me. But if I had received your last a few days sooner, I much doubt whether I should have paid him a compliment for his Christian Moderation, towards the End of my Remarks. I have not, however, expressed my

1 Hollis disliked Secker, and in 1765, when sending to Mayhew "a great rarity,” Secker's sermon of February 20, 1740-41, before the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts he added: "It was the coloring bye-view of this sermon, that first occasioned a fixt dislike in me to Dr. Secker. He thought to figure by it, easily, in commendam, without danger of any kind. Having been corrected for it by Mr. Hubbard, he became disgusted with the Colonists. Then he hated them. Then fixed a Spye regularly upon them; for such I always deemed Apthorp. Then began a further scheme concerning American Bishops; in which, instead of hard unsplendid work at home, the watching da Vero, against the evil morals, conduct of his own vast Flock, and the alarming growth of Popery, etc., he thought to win easy glory from a distance, and, himself a changeling, to outshine or equal the greatest of his Predecessors."

suspicions of his being concerned in the Answer.... If the A. B. is such a Person as you represent him, (and no man's representation would have more weight with me,) I cannot think strange that a Gentleman of your truly patriotic principles had determined to drop him wholly, notwithstanding all his hierarchical dignity and trappings. I am fully satisfied you have not been wanting to your native country in your Station, especially when I consider your generous concern for the welfare of ours, and what you have done for its Service."

Nor did the matter end here. In November, Hollis saw an advertisement in the Daily Advertiser of the Boston edition of the Remarks, and on going to the bookseller - Keith, - in Gracechurch Street he learned that twenty-five copies had been put on sale by someone in London, of which eighteen copies remained unsold. "I caused those eighteen copies to be immediately bought up and scattered out of the way of the new edit[ion]. Yet usefully, lest they should interfere with it, pain Millar, and deter him for the future from concerning himself in publications of that sort, which, though undoubtedly important, excellent, have difficulties enough otherwise to struggle with to find a current sale."

Mayhew's interest in his own productions and their reception in London continued. December 18, 1764, he wrote to Hollis: "I am very glad my Remarks on the London Answer to the Observations are not unacceptable to you. If the greatest Error in said Remarks is too much civility to the Answerer, commonly supposed to be Leviathan himself; this will easily be overlooked by him and the party: And I hope it will not, upon the whole, hurt the cause in which I am engaged. By what you write, it is probable my last Remarks are published in London by this Time, tho' I have not yet heard that they are. It is likely

that something will be printed there in opposition to them. If there should be, I humbly crave the favor of you to send it to me as soon as may be after the publication. I have materials by me which I think would illustrate and strengthen what I have already written upon the subject. But I believe I shall hardly write again, except I am put upon it by something farther being written on the other side.

"I perceive by the last Abstract, etc., that the Society, to whose Judgment and Decision Mr. Apthorp humbly submitted the Merits of this cause, have fully decided it against me; declaring that I have been sufficiently answered both at home and abroad. I also perceive that the Critical Review for July last gives the cause against me in favor of the Answerer; and shews much dislike both of my Defence against the Candid Examination, and Mr. F[leming's Letter to the Author of the London Answer. All have a right to give their opinion. There are doubtless some very sensible persons amongst the Critical Reviewers. But their character with many here is that of a set of high-flying J[aco]b[i]te, mercenary writers: If it be a just one, I have the less reason to be anxious about their approbation, or disapprobation.1 I have seen what the Monthly Reviewers have said, both of the Observations, and of the London Answer thereto. But I have not yet met with any Review of theirs, which mentions my Defence against the Candid Examination, or Mr. F[lemi]ng's Letter. If they have taken Notice of these Pieces, I should take it as a favor if you would send me the Review in which they do it. . . . If I should

1 "The Monthly Reviewers have able worthy People among them; and for Traders in the way of Literature afford as much as possible to Liberty. The Critical Reviewers are almost, if not all, Scottishmen, without Ignorance or Knowledge; and by interest and inclination are not whigs, perhaps. " Hollis to Mayhew, June 24, 1765. Ms.

write again in this controversy, I shall pay a particular Attention to your hints as to the manner of doing it, and be as concise as possibly I can, consistently with the Ends of my writing. I shall strictly observe what you say with reference to not putting you into any kind of connection with a certain person [Mauduit]; one whom I have myself some grounds to suspect as a double-minded man in a strait between honesty and the wicked policy of the times."

Naturally the controversy came to an end, not without a note of triumph from Hollis, dated March 4, 1765: "All agree that the Answer, so called, to your tract was written by the A. B.; but I am of an opinion that you will never get another, a direct one, from him or any other Church Leader, now that you have touched on Popery; no ass in sand cart, skin-cut and goaded, being more tender than the A. B. and his Brethren when touched on that Subject.

"The Return of Mr. Apthorp,' that Spye upon your Land, must have been a thorough mortification to the A. B., who begat and sent him out such; and the Fathers of New England should crown with oak leaves the Man who by his sole judgment and energy, hath forced it. I am assured that at the motion of the A. B. it is entered in the Books of the Episcopal Propagators, that no more Missionaries shall be sent to New England; which information will turn out to be in fact, I suppose, that no more Missions shall be established there. What the A. B. hath done, or rather left undone, is inconsiderable, and to save appear

1 “Mr. Apthorp, the Cambridge Missionary, is lately and suddenly gone for England: and it is commonly supposed that he will not return to live in this country. I understand that the church at Cambridge was shut up last Lord's day; and that all the Episcopalians there in general attended the Congregational worship." Mayhew to Hollis, October 17, 1764. MS.