ge ascribed to Mather, by
Sewall. It shows, at any rate, that Mather felt sure that Proctor went
out of the world, an unrepenting, unconfessing wizard, and, therefore,
not a fit subject for a Christian Minister to unite with in prayer.

One other remark, by the way. The account Sewall gives of the impression
made by Burroughs, on the spectators, now first brought to light, in
print, is singularly confirmatory of what Calef says on the subject.

My chief purpose, however, in citing this passage from Sewall's Diary,
is this. Mather was not present at the Trial of Burroughs. If he was not
present at his Examination before the Magistrates, how could he have
spoken, as he did, of the righteousness of his sentence? There had been
no Report or publication, in any way, of the evidence; and he could only
have received a competent knowledge of it from personal presence, on one
or the other of those occasions. He could not have been justified in so
confident and absolute a judgment, by mere hearsay. If that had been the
source of his information, he would have modified his language
accordingly.

There is one other item to be considered, in treating the question of
Mather's connection with the Examinations of the Prisoners, before the
Magistrates.

When Proctor was awaiting his trial, during the short period, previous
to that event, that he was in the Salem Jail, he had addressed a letter
to "Mr. Mather, Mr. Allen, Mr. Moody, Mr. Willard and Mr. Baily," all
Ministers, begging them to intercede, in behalf of himself and
fellow-prisoners, to secure to them better treatment, especially a
fairer trial than they could have in Salem, where such a violent
excitement had been wrought up against them. From the character of the
letter, it is evident that it was addressed to them in the hope and
belief that they were accessible, to such an appeal. But one of the
Mathers is named. They were associate Ministers of the same Church.
Although the father was President of the College at Cambridge, he
resided in Boston, and was in the active exercise of his ministry there.
The question is, Which of them is meant? In my book, I expressed the
opinion that it was Increase, the father. The Reviewer says it was
Cotton, the son. It is a fair question; and every person can form a
judgment upon it. The other persons named, comprising the rest of the
Ministers then connected with the Boston Churches, are severally, more
or less, indicated by what has come