As to the religious part of the plan, recollect what has been already mentioned of archbishop _Secker_; carefully peruse Dr. _Mayhew’s_ noted answer to one of his publications, and what is related concerning him in the collection of papers above quoted; and you will scarce doubt, “but that it was the metropolitan’s intention to reduce all the British colonies under episcopal authority.” Remember also, that the bishop of _Landaff_ in his sermon of 1766, assures us, that _the establishment of episcopacy_ being obtained, “the _American_ church will grow out of its infant state, be able to stand upon its own legs, and without foreign help, support and spread itself, and _then this society will be brought to the happy issue intended_.” Mr. Whitefield said upon it, in his letter to Mr. _Durell_, “supposing his lordship’s assertions true, then I fear it will follow, that a society, which since its first institution hath been looked upon as _a society for propagating the gospel_, hath been all the while rather _a society for propagating episcopacy in foreign parts_.” This letter will close with a few more articles of information. Among the original instructions to _Benning Wentworth_, esq. governor of New-Hampshire, signed June 30th, 1761, the 27th says, “you are not to give your assent to, or pass any law imposing duties on negroes imported into New-Hampshire:” some of the colonies were for discouraging the introduction of negroes—for which purpose they wished to lay a duty upon them. The 69th contains the following direction, “No school-master to be henceforth permitted to come from England without the licence of the bishop; and no other person now there, or that shall come from other parts, shall be admitted to keep school without your licence first obtained.” [Feb. 1762.] A law passed in the Massachusetts, entitled, “An act to incorporate certain persons, by the name of _The society for promoting Christian knowledge among the Indians in North America_; but was disallowed at the court of St. James’s the 20th of May, 1763. Mr. _Jasper Mauduit_, in his letter to Mr. _Bowdoin_ of April 7, 1763, writes, “So long ago as the 10th of December, I was told at the plantation-office, that this act was opposed by the archbishop and the society for propagating the gospel. Mr. _Pownall_ told me that the bill would not pass; that the lords would not dispute the laudableness of the design, but there were political reasons for not confirming it; that the people might apply the money to oppose the missionaries of the church of England. I answered, I wished that the society for propagating the gospel had employed their missionaries more among the Indians than they had hitherto done in North America.” From what passed, the real reasons for disallowing the bill may be gathered. LETTER III. _Roxbury, December 24, 1772._