acter and consequences.
In its commencement and progress, his activity is every-where
conspicuous."

The Reviewer represents Mr. Quincy as merely repeating what I had said
in my Lectures. He makes the same reckless assertion in reference to
Bancroft, the late William B. O. Peabody, D.D., and every one else, who
has written upon the subject, since 1831. The idea that Josiah Quincy
"took his cue" from me, is simply preposterous. He does not refer to me,
nor give any indication that he had ever seen my _Lectures_, but cites
Calef, as his authority, over and over again. Dr. Peabody refers to
Calef throughout, and draws upon him freely and with confidence, as
every one else, who has written about the transaction, has probably
done.

It may safely be said, that no historical fact has ever been more
steadily recognized, than the action and, to a great degree, controlling
agency, of Cotton Mather, in supporting and promoting the witchcraft
proceedings of 1692. That it has, all along, been the established
conviction of the public mind, is proved by the chronological series of
names I have produced. Thomas Hutchinson, John Eliot, William Bentley,
and Josiah Quincy, cover the whole period from Cotton Mather's day to
this. They knew, as well as any other men that can be named, the current
opinions, transmitted sentiments, and local and personal annals, of
Boston. They reflect with certainty an assurance, running in an unbroken
course over a century and a half. Their family connections, social
position, conversance with events, and familiar knowledge of what men
thought, believed, and talked about, give to their concurrent and
continuous testimony, a force and weight of authority that are decisive;
and demonstrate that, instead of my having invented and originated the
opinion of Cotton Mather's agency in the matter now under consideration,
I have done no more than to restate what has been believed and uttered
from the beginning.

The writer in the _North American_ says: "Within the last forty years,
there has grown up a fashion, among our historical writers, of defaming
his character and underrating his productions. For a specimen of these
attacks, the reader is referred to a _Supposed Letter from Rev. Cotton
Mather, D.D., with comments on the same by James Savage_." The article
mentioned consists of the "supposed letter," and a very valuable
communication from the late Rev. Samuel Sewall, with some items by Mr.
Savage--[_Massac