[56] A Tryal of Witches, printed 1682, published with a treatise of Sir Matthew Hale’s on Sheriffs’ Accompts, London, 1683. Sir Matthew’s charge was to the following effect: “That he would not repeat the Evidence unto them, least by so doing he should wrong the Evidence on the one side or on the other. Only this acquainted them, That they had Two things to enquire after. First, whether or no these children were bewitched? Secondly, whether the Prisoners at the Bar were Guilty of it. That there were such Creatures as Witches he made no doubt at all; For, First, the Scriptures had affirmed so much. Secondly, The Wisdom of all Nations had provided laws against such persons, which is an argument of their confidence in such a Crime. And such hath been the judgment of this Kingdom, as appears by that Act of Parliament which hath provided Punishments proportionable to the quality of the offense. And desired them strictly to observe their Evidence; and desired the great God of Heaven to direct their Hearts in this weighty thing they had in hand: For to condemn the Innocent, and to let the Guilty go free, were both an abomination unto the Lord.” (pp. 55, 56.)
[57] A Tryal of Witches, pp. 41, 42.
[58] Winthrop, ii. 307. Stiles, Ancient Windsor, i. 447.
[59] Winthrop, ii. 326. Hutchinson, Hist. of Massachusets-Bay (London, 1765–1768), i. 150. Mass. Rec., ii. 242, iii. 126, seems to refer to this case, though no names are given.
[60] Mather, Cotton, Late Memorable Providences, pp. 62–65. Magnalia, Book vi. ch. 7.
[61] W. S. Poole, in Memorial History of Boston, ii. 133 note. Hutchinson, ii. 10.
[62] Mass. Rec., iv. (1), 47, 48.
[63] Mass. Rec., i. (1), 96.
[64] Conn. Colonial Records, i. 220; cf. New Haven Col. Rec., ii. 78.
[65] History of Hartford County (Conn.), Sketch of Wethersfield, by S. Adams.