The phases in which the writings of Cotton Mather present their author are
so varied, and the estimation in which he has been held by subsequent
writers is so diverse, that there is difficulty in characterizing him to
one's own satisfaction. He was neither wholly saint, nor wholly sinner;
was not unmingled wisdom, nor all folly. We do not very eagerly undertake
to outline his character. But since, apart from records of courts, his pen
furnished more valuable and more numerous facts pertaining to New England
witchcraft in the seventeenth century than have come down from any other
pen, there seems to be a call upon us to comment upon his competency and
trustworthiness as observer and as reporter or recorder of facts.
In matured life he had become probably the first scholar and most learned
man in the province. His mind was bright, versatile, and active, and its
application to books, to the demands of his profession, and to the
educational, moral, religious, and political interests of the public, was
untiring. His attention was drawn to consideration of marvelous
occurrences while he was quite young, and his records of witchcraft were
nearly _all_ penned by the time he was thirty years old. In 1689, being
then only twenty-six, he published a small work entitled "Memorable
Providences relating to Witchcraft and Possessions."
He was a personal witness and an alert observer, through several
successive months, of a rapid and prolonged stream of marvels, which were
manifested through the children of John Goodwin, of Boston, in 1688, a
long account of which he published quite soon after their occurrence. Four
years later came on the SALEM WITCHCRAFT, and portions of its tragic and
agonizing occurrences were witnessed by this Boston clergyman. He was
present in the crowd around the gallows when several of the wronged
victims to diabolism were executed. And he promptly furnished an extended
account of much which had just intensely agitated and frenzied not only
Salem and Essex County, but the whole province. The next year, 1693,
brought him opportunity to be much with and to observe carefully two
afflicted young, women in Boston, Mercy Short and Margaret Rule, whose
maladies were deemed bewitchments. He recorded his observations and doings
relating to these two persons, and his accounts are available to-day,
though there is evidence rendering it probable that he never prepared
either record for the press, and that both have become public without his
sanction.
As has been learned from what precedes, Robert Calef, an opponent of some
then prevalent beliefs and practices concerning witchcraft, found means,
whether honorably or not is perhaps debatable, for putting Mather's
account of Margaret Rule before the world. This young woman was under
Mather's special watch for several weeks, while she was being acted upon
by occult agents and forces; and he promptly recorded for perusal by his
friends an account of what transpired around her.
From the foregoing statements it is obvious that, both directly and
indirectly, very many facts and opinions, that will be adduced as our work
proceeds, will have been derived from Mather's records, and will rest, at
least in part, upon his authority. Consequently, his qualifications, as
observer, reporter, and recorder, are matters not only of interest, but of
some importance.
Though young when attentive to witchcraft scenes, Mather was learned and
influential. Probably few other persons, if any, in the colonies were then
his equals in those respects. His duties as a clergyman and a citizen, and
his inclination also, led him to be an extensive observer of marvelous
manifestations; he obviously was a lover of such. And his records show
that he was either a closer observer of the minutiae of transpiring events
of that nature, or a more willing and careful specifier of little things
pertaining to them, full of important meaning to some readers now, yet
probably meaningless to many others, than were most of his cotemporaries;
though Lawson, Hale, and Willard were good at specification, and were more
cautious commentators than Mather. An ignoring of any participation by
spirits in witchcraft scenes has blinded historians in both the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries to some decided merits in the writings of
Mather.
The assumption by later commentators that no occurrences whatsoever, which
required more than mortal agency for their production, ever actually
transpired in cases witnessed and described by Mather, has apparently
caused them, consciously or otherwise, to impute to his fancy, credulity,
or other untrustworthy attributes, many things which a moderate
acquaintance on their part with modern manipulations of occult forces by
invisible intelligences would have suggested to them that possibly, and
even probably, his statements of facts were based on positive observations
by his own physical senses, and by the external senses of other observers.
A class of agents are now at work whose cognition may some day turn the
laugh upon overweeningly wise laughers at Cotton Mather. This
circumscribed view as to the actual extent and variety of _natural_
intelligent agents, and _natural_ laws and forces, has caused them to draw
inferences disparaging to Mather's accuracy in places where more knowledge
of the outworkings of laws and forces which spirits obey and use, would
have given them trust in the essential naturalness and consequent probable
occurrence of nearly or quite all the facts stated in his narrative of
personal observations and experiences--we do not say in the pervading
wisdom and value of his comments and inferences, but in the naturalness
and consequent credibility of his _facts_.
Where forlorn and wretched old women, together with tricksy and roguish
girls, and a few low-lived, malicious mortals of both sexes are regarded
as the actual authors of all witchcraft phenomena, Mather's reports of
that class of occurrences are an offense--are a stumbling-block in the
pathway of satisfactory solution. So long as his statements are left
unimpeached, such agents as witchcraft has of late been imputed to are
incompetent to the work ascribed to them. That author, therefore, must
needs be discredited; consequently sneer, and slur, and ridicule have been
brought to bear against his accuracy and trustworthiness. Some modern
commentators have made _savage_ use of such weapons upon this original
describer of witchcraft scenes. He has been by innuendoes caricatured and
metamorphosed to an extent which seems distinctly reprehensible. Brightest
minds may sometimes lack knowledge of some existing agents and forces;
good men may be actual, though unintentional perpetrators of great wrong,
when they depict the characters of some predecessors whose words seem
extravagant to such as limit natural actors and forces to those which the
external senses and human science have long been familiar with.
Our recent readings have led us to regard Mather as a man of more than
common efficiency in acquiring information, and more than common despatch
in putting his acquisitions before the public. We find evidences in his
works that, if he did not acquire, he put forth both more minute and more
extensive knowledge of the marvelous phenomena of his times, than any
other person then living in America of whom we have knowledge. Portions of
his creeds helped him to frankness in description of marvels. His faith
embraced many unseen intelligent agents, both good and bad, moving to and
fro among men, ever walking the earth and influencing its affairs both
"when we wake and when we sleep." Consequently he never had occasion to
inquire whether anything whatsoever was _possible_ which his senses or the
senses of other witnesses seemed to cognize. He doubted not that unseen
powers competent to anything whatsoever were around both him and all other
human beings. His only question was, did the thing occur? If it did, it
was proper to describe it as it appeared to its beholders. _How_ it could
occur was a question which he, as recorder, was not called upon to answer;
and he did not permit it to modify his record. This weakness(?) of his was
fraught with latent strength which becomes beneficent in our day by its
revealing to us the former mysterious irruption upon society of precisely
such _outre_ and seemingly unnatural antics and doings, not only of
animated human forms, but of lifeless household utensils and ornaments, as
we are witnessing. History by him repeats itself to-day, and to-day's
marvels give credibility to his statements. Mather furnished broader and
better bases for judging of the real sources, nature, character, and
extent of witchcraft facts, than we generally get from other persons of
his day. Over-cautious witnesses and reporters often mislead very widely
by failing to tell "the whole truth."
Some of Mather's statements and doings which were slurred even by his
cotemporary Calef, and have been by later writers also, may deserve more
respectful consideration than has usually been accorded to them. We are
alluding to his manipulations of the afflicted, and other like acts. These
indicate that either his observances and care of bewitched persons, or his
intuitions, were giving him hints of the existence of natural laws and
special conditions which permit mortals to loose, what he conceived to
be,--or at least spoke of as being,--the devil's hold upon human
instruments. We apprehend that he had at least vague surmises that some
things which we now call mesmeric passes and psychological forces might be
so applied by himself as to thwart the purposes and powers of possessing
spirits. We are ready to grant that his use of dawning knowledge or of
inflowed suggestions, whichever of them it was that set his own hands in
motion over the obsessed, and prompted him to influence others to do the
like, produced movements so unskillful that they were seldom very
efficacious; yet we perceive that he moved in direction toward later
discoveries which at this day enable many mortals to exercise much power
toward both inducing and abolishing the control of human beings by
disembodied spirits. There hang about Mather slight indications that he
received some knowledge or some impulses, mediumistically, impressionally,
or intuitively. The fact that, though having much to do with both Mercy
Short and Margaret Rule during the months of their affliction in the year
immediately following the executions at Salem, he refrained from advising
or procuring their prosecution, or the prosecution of any whom they named
as their afflictors, the facts that prayers, fastings, manipulations, and
protracted and unflagging kindnesses and attentions, were his only
appliances, and that both the girls were brought back to their normal
condition, speak very distinctly in favor of Mather's sagacity and
philanthropy, in relation to the bewitched and the bewitchers, that year.
Though we are disposed to credit this prominent man with all the merits to
which he has fair claim, we are far from regarding him as without foibles,
weaknesses, and traits fitted to mantle the reader's face with smiles. We
dissent from many of his notions, practices, and beliefs; we find him
often swayed by motives which we are not ready to commend. At the same
time we apprehend that many modern critics have paraded his weaknesses,
blemishes, and laughable traits out of all just proportion to the notices,
if any, which they have taken of his genuine merits.
Mather obviously was vain, egotistical, proud of his descent, greedy of
the favor of great men both of the province and abroad, and was ambitious
of place and influence. But vanity and egotism are not necessarily
incompatible with very extensive learning, nor with great activity and
beneficence, nor with presentation of facts and truths both very fully and
without over-statement or distortion. He wrote hastily--much too hastily,
and loosely oftentimes. More care to verify information and statements
furnished him by other people, and more careful expressions pertaining to
his own observations, experiences, and opinions, would have rendered him a
much more valuable historian than he became. We concede that he was a
loose and immethodical writer; but we fail to find evidence that he often,
if ever, substituted fictions for facts, or made false statements or great
exaggerations. The world is indebted to him for preserving and
transmitting much valuable information.
This man's estimation of himself and of his ancestry often reveals itself
in extent and manner which provoke smiles. Possibly his egotism was
competent to give him a latent notion that quite as much favor might be
vouchsafed by powers above to his two eminent grandfathers, Revs. Richard
Mather and John Cotton, to his father, Rev. Increase Mather, President of
Harvard College, and to himself, as Heaven had in store for any mortals;
and if any one of the four should be the special favorite of supernal
intelligence, why not himself, in whom the blood of the other three was
combined? If any quite honorable Public position was devoid of an
incumbent, or if important literary public service was needed, who was
more competent to fill the one, or to the performance of the other, than
himself? He wrote both for and of Sir William Phips, but was not chosen
President, of Harvard College.
Even egregious egotism is not necessarily incongruous with truth,
kindness, charity, devotion, and great usefulness. With all his faults, we
regard Mather, when compared with most men, as having been very efficient,
well-intentioned, and useful to the community around him. Propensity to
magnify self and whatever self either puts forth or is closely allied to,
may be prevailingly bridled and controlled by other strong inclinations,
and kept within the boundaries of truth. Greed for approbation and
commendation by persons holding high official position, and by all others
whose characters, attainments, or possessions gave them influence in
society, was apparently very strong in Cotton Mather, and the influence of
that greed must generally have swayed him to make no important statements
which would fail to meet, with general credence by his friends and
fellow-townsmen. His account of the Goodwin family is as full of things
hard to be believed as any other portion of his writings; and yet, if he
therein permitted himself to make any other than such statements as would
receive ready credence by many physicians, clergymen, magistrates, and
other influential and truthful persons who had been his fellow-witnesses,
and knew exactly the bounds beyond which he could not go on a basis of
well-observed facts, he would diminish his fame and favor with the public;
and he well knew this. He was not the man to thus put his own reputation
at hazard. His very weaknesses render it probable that he has transmitted
little, if anything, more relating to that family than Boston, as a whole,
was at that time actually believing had just occurred in its midst. It is
not wise, not kind, not just to overlook such characteristics and
circumstances pertaining to a narrator as would naturally hold his speech
within the bounds of credibility. Mather's style and manner, sometimes
admirable, are very often laughable, and are generally loose and
unattractive. But these matters of taste and polish are distinct from his
facts and truthfulness.
Bad manners, lack of tact, also speech, acts, and omissions unbecoming the
gentleman and the divine, mark portions of Mather's treatment of Calef.
Whether such were his general characteristics, we do not know; probably
they were not. Occupation of the pulpit, as we know by personal
experience, may make a preacher exceedingly sensitive to questionings of
his opinions on any important matters anywhere. His habit of speaking,
week after week, year after year, where none question or controvert,
induces extreme sensitiveness in the mental cuticle. If sick and
overworked, Mather may have been easily nettled into other than his usual
manners when Calef pricked him by opposing his beliefs, and by covert
sneers at some of his actions. In his account of Mercy Short he mentions
his impaired health and overworkings.
Unfortunately, as we judge, for his posthumous reputation, Mather was
scribe of a convention of clergymen who met and deliberately put forth
advice to the courts and government pertaining to evidence and processes
which might properly be used at trials for the crime of witchcraft. As
scribe, Mather reduced the opinions of the convention to form for
publication, if he had not previously drawn up his own, and at the meeting
obtained their adoption. Since the advice of this convention has been
extensively regarded as disastrous in its results, Mather has been deemed
an efficient, if not the most efficient of all promoters of the executions
at Salem. We seriously question the justice of such imputation upon him,
and we doubt whether the advice of the convention incited to the special
course of action pursued by the courts, though it partially permitted it,
perhaps. That advice commended "a very critical and exquisite caution ...
_that there may be nothing used as a test for the trial of the suspected,
the lawfulness whereof may be doubted by the people of God_." So far,
good. This, to us at this day, looks like a caution to avoid the admission
of _spectral evidence_, as it was then called, and distinct statement is
made that such evidence alone was not enough to justify conviction; also
it looks like a caution against cruel methods of extorting pleas and
confessions. But the concluding paragraph of their advice, which is in the
following words, _may_ have greatly nullified the softening force of all
that preceded it. "We cannot but humbly recommend unto the government the
speedy and vigorous prosecution of such as have rendered themselves
obnoxious, according to the directions given in the laws of God and
wholesome statutes of the English nation, for the detection of
witchcraft." This advice came forth June 15, 1692, just when the flames of
witchcraft at Salem village had become alarming to the whole community;
when scores of people were under arrest there upon suspicion of
witchcraft, and when the courts were anxiously seeking to know how to
conduct their trials. The advice seems to us somewhat ambidexter, holding
forth in one hand exhortations to caution and leniency, and in the other
an exhortation to make vigorous and prompt application of English
witchcraft laws and usages which permitted and implied resort to most
barbarous processes, and admitted all imaginable sorts of evidence. The
general impression upon our mind, made by our recent readings, is, that
the clergy generally were opposed to much reliance upon spectral evidence,
and that their advice was meant to give that impression; while the civil
_magistrates_ at Salem held a different opinion, acted according to it,
and obtained convictions upon spectral evidence in cases where none other
was attainable. It was the civil magistrates, much more than the clergy,
whose opinions, when embodied in action, outwrought the horrors of
Gallows Hill. Therefore we attach less blame to the scribe of the
convention, and to the convention itself, than many others have done.
Though the belief is wide-spread in the youthful mind of our day that
Cotton Mather was chief begetter of Salem witchcraft, we find no facts to
justify belief that any act of his ever had such intent. His chief acts
known to us which connect him at all with doings there, were his
authorship of the clerical advice just noticed, his presence at the
hanging when Proctor, Willard, Burroughs, and others were executed, when
he said aloud to the multitude which was being incited by a fervent and
touching address from the lips of the doomed Burroughs, "Even the devil
may be changed into an angel of light," and his offer to support five or
six of the afflicted at his own expense for weeks, provided he should be
allowed to treat them by his own preferred process--that of praying and
fasting, and keeping them mostly secluded from public observation.
Unexplained, his presence at the execution may be supposed to argue that
it was one which had attractions for him--one which it was his pleasure to
be present at. But a very rational supposition of Poole places Mather
before us there in a different light. Proctor and others had been hardly
dealt with by the clergy in and near Salem, and, while confined in Boston
jail awaiting the day of execution, they received such attentions from
Mather, that they requested him to be present as their spiritual adviser
at the closing hour of their earthly lives. Statements by Mather, which
his cotemporaries never contradicted, are to the effect that he never
attended any trial for witchcraft, that no one was ever prosecuted for
that crime by him, or at his suggestion, or by his advice; that his voice
and intentional influence were ever against such proceedings. He also
informs us that he made an offer to support five or six of the Salem
sufferers for weeks at his own expense, if he could have them subjected to
his special charge, so that he could treat them by methods of his own.
Such facts surely indicate that an ardent and active man like him, ever
burning to take part in most popular movements, was not in sympathy with
originators of the violent and barbarous proceedings which were prosecuted
at Salem. Had he relished them he would have been present at the trials.
The facts give spontaneous birth to a presumption that some other motive
than curiosity to witness the executions took him to Salem at the time
when we find him there, and the supposition of Poole that he went there as
the comforter and friend of Proctor and Willard is reasonable, and
probably correct. If it be, the motive of his visit was not only
commendable, but was also in harmony with his general doings in witchcraft
cases that were more specially under his supervision, and is in distinct
antagonism with motives which have been extensively imputed to him. We
apprehend, however, that when others obtained convictions and sentences
for witchcraft, he favored the execution of what he deemed wholesome law.
We regret that he rudely broke the spell which the hallowing speech and
prayer of the saintly Burroughs were bringing upon the witnessing crowd.
But we question whether the special reputed crime for which Burroughs was
about to die, caused Mather to allude to him as the _devil_. Burroughs,
though a preacher, had not been regularly ordained, or surely not in a way
that satisfied Mather; also he was too regardless of the ordinances of
religion, and too free a thinker, to suit the taste of the pastor of the
North Church in Boston. This was, we think, his great offense in Mather's
view; and this caused the latter to say in reference to one who may have
been more God-like and Christ-like in spirit than himself, "Even the devil
may be changed into an angel of light." That saying, under its
circumstances, is damaging to Mather; yet it does not bear against him in
matters pertaining to witchcraft, but to those of sectarianism or bigotry.
Mather the _humane_ and Mather the _fame-seeker_ present very different
aspects in their connections with witchcraft. As we view him in cases
where he was leader and director, as those of Mercy Short and Margaret
Rule, matters were so managed that no one was brought to examination upon
suspicion of bewitching them, and Mather's words and acts were uniformly
designed to prevent any arraignment. Prayer, fastings, manipulations, and
all practicable privacy and quiet were his preferred appliances for
closing up the devil's avenues of access, and of barring him off from man.
This was Mather the _humane_, was Mather the _practical pastor_. But when
the courts and men of influence and high position had applied, as they
interpreted them, "the laws of God and the wholesome statutes of the
English nation for the detection of witchcraft," the thirster for public
approbation, not only refrained from protest against bloodshed, but lacked
modesty enough to hold him back from hinting that his own productions
might have helped on the beneficent work which had been accomplished; for
he carefully let the world know that Mr. _Mather, the younger_, drew up
the advice of the ministers to the court; and after having written out an
account of the trials at Salem, he said, "I shall rejoice that God is
glorified, if the publication of these trials may promote such a pious
thankfulness to God _for justice being so far executed among us_," as the
ministers piously expressed in their advice. This was Mather the
fame-seeker, the ecclesiastic, and the subject of their Majesties, William
and Mary. Mather was not a well-balanced man. Consistency all round was
not conspicuous in him, yet he was consistent in his own treatment and
management of all his special patients, and also in his efforts to make it
known that himself might deserve some meed of merit for the murderous
course pursued by the authorities for stopping the ravages of the evil
one.
From early manhood to the close of his life, Mather was an unfaltering
believer in Protestant Christendom's great witchcraft devil, backed by
countless hosts of lesser ones, and he also believed in her special
witchcraft. He had full faith in a devil as ubiquitous, active, and
malignant as his own vigorous and expansive intellect could conjure up;
had faith that extra manifestations of afflictive might, of knowledge, or
of suffering in the outer world were produced by the devil, and faith also
that even that mighty evil one was unable to afflict men outwardly,
excepting either at the call or by the aid of some human servant who had
entered into a covenant with his Black Majesty. The woe-working points of
this man's faith were, that special covenantings with the devil were
entered into by human beings, in consequence of which the covenanting
mortals became witches--that is, they thence became able to command all
his powers, as well as he theirs; also that only through such covenanted
ones could he or his do harm to the bodies and external possessions of
men. Therefore, he reasoned, that, whenever extra and unaccountable
malignant action appeared, some covenanter with the devil must be in the
neighborhood of the malignant manifestation.
And yet, practically, Mather was not disposed to let the public get
knowledge of the covenanter. His choice was, to keep secret the names of
bewitched actors, the afflictors of the suffering ones, and to strive by
prayers, fastings, manipulations, &c., to relieve the unhappy sufferers.
Had his policy been adopted by the public, had his example been widely
followed, there would have been no execution for witchcraft in his
generation.
We can--and we are glad that we can--state that Mather's faith embraced
some other invisible beings than malicious ones, who had access to man. In
that respect he probably differed from, and was favored above, most of the
clergy and church members of his times; and perhaps his possession of
faith in the ministry of _good_ angels made him a more lenient handler and
more patient observer of the afflicted, than were most of his
cotemporaries. His prolonged attention to Martha Goodwin, to Mercy Short,
to Margaret Rule, and his offer to take care of five or six Salem ones if
he could be allowed the management of them, bespeak kindness in him above
what was common in his age toward those deemed to be under "an evil hand."
He once wrote thus:--
"In the present evil world it is no wonder that the evil angels are more
_sensible_ than those of the good ones. Nevertheless it is very certain
that the _good_ angels continually, without any defilement, fly about in
our defiled atmosphere _to minister_ for the good of them that are the
heirs of salvation.... Now, though the angelic ministration is usually
behind the curtain of more visible instruments and their actions, yet
sometimes it hath been with extraordinary circumstances made more obvious
to the sense of the faithful."
He was not unmindful and did not omit to record the fact that "the
enchanted people talked much of a _white spirit_, from whence they
received marvelous assistances.... Margaret Rule had a frequent view of
his bright, shining, and glorious garments, ... and says he told her that
God had permitted her afflictions to befall her for the unspeakable and
everlasting good of her own soul, and for the good of many others; and for
his own immortal glory."
When a being or beings of such glorious appearance present themselves, and
when their utterances and influences are elevating and blissful, it is not
wise to ignore them. The very laws which permit the advent of low and dark
spirits are natural, and can be availed of, on fitting occasions and
conditions, by elevated and bright ones; therefore wisdom invites man to
solicit and prepare the way for visits by the latter class.
The courtesy of S. F. Haven, Esq., the accomplished librarian of the
American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass., recently permitted us to
see a long-lost and recently discovered manuscript, giving, in Cotton
Mather's handwriting, an account of Mercy Short. We judge from cursory
perusal of a modern manuscript copy of Mather's account, that the
librarian had ample grounds for reporting to the society that Mercy
Short's was "a case similar to that of Margaret Rule, but _of greater
interest and fuller details_." He further remarked in his report, that "it
will be remembered that the account of Margaret Rule was not published by
Mather himself, but by his enemy Calef, who by some means obtained
possession of it. The story of Mercy Short, from an indorsement upon it,
appears to have been privately circulated among his friends, but there is
nothing to show that Mather ever intended it for publication."--_S. F.
Haven's Report, April 29, 1874._
Common fairness requires all modern critics to remember and regard the
fact that Mather's accounts of Mercy Short and Margaret Rule were never
given to the public by himself; that they never received his revision and
correction for the press. Because of this they perhaps come to us more
alive with the spirit of frankness and sincerity, and with more detail of
little incidents. Unstudied records are generally honest and substantially
accurate, even if marred by looseness of style and expression, and by
statements of wonders.
Our views would require us to refrain from calling Calef _Mather's_
"enemy," as the librarian did. He was the enemy of _unscriptural_
definitions of witchcraft, and of unjustifiable proceedings against those
accused of it; but not, as we read his purposes and feelings, the enemy of
Mather himself. He was the enemy of opinions of which Mather was a
conspicuous and outspoken representative, and whose writings furnished
provoking occasion for an attack upon disastrous errors.
We trust the public may ere long see Mather's account of Mercy Short in
print. That, and the one of Margaret Rule, show us very authentically, and
we can almost say _beautifully_, the temper of Mather witch-ward, in the
spring and autumn of the year next following the memorable 1692. Nothing
then inclined him to ways that led to human slaughter. The conditions,
seeming acts, and surroundings of those two girls apparently gave him
opportunity and power to evoke a repetition of Salem's fearful scenes, in
which the modern world has been deluded to believe that his soul found
pleasure. If that soul loved blood, it could easily have set it flowing in
1693, and found wherewith to gratify its appetite; but _it did not_.
One of the questions of great importance which received earnest discussion
in witchcraft times, perhaps the most important of all in practical
bearings, had Mather and Calef both on the same side, and consequently it
was not dwelt upon in their controversy. Our reference is to the
_validity_ of "_spectral evidence_,"--that is, of testimony given by those
who obviously perceived the facts they testified to while in an entranced,
clairvoyant, or other abnormal condition. Some--many--able and good men
then maintained that such testimony, unbacked by any other, might justify
conviction of witchcraft, while quite as many, equally able and good men,
including most of the clergy, maintained that such testimony alone was not
sufficient.
Another disputed point was, whether Satan could assume the shape of an
innocent person, and in that shape do mischief to the bodies and estates
of mankind. The same question, partially, is up to-day--viz., Can any but
willing devotees to Satan be used in the processes of spirit
manifestations? Our two combatants were not at variance here--both had
faith that Satan, the then synonym of _Spirits_, whether good or bad,
could employ the innocent in prosecuting his purposes.
On the question whether Satan was obliged to use some mortal in covenant
with himself whenever he harmed another mortal, they differed, as has been
already shown, Mather claiming that human co-operation was frequently, if
not always, needful to any manifestation of witchcraft. But in 1698 he put
this among what he conceived to be "mistaken principles." We do not recall
any other point on which he expressed change of view, nor do we find him
making confessions of personal wrong-doings in connection with witchcraft;
neither does he seem to have had cause for either confession or
repentance, if kindness, leniency, and good-will to man are not to be
confessed and repented of as crimes.