ication by the Board of
Assistants--as President of which body, it had been his official duty to
pass upon her the final sentence of death. Juries, Judges, both branches
of the Legislature, and the people, clamored for her execution; but the
brave old Governor withstood them all, resolutely and inexorably: an
innocent and good woman and the honor of the Colony, at that time, were
saved. Mr. Hale informs us that Bradstreet refused to allow the
sentence to take effect, for these reasons: that "a spectre doing
mischief in her likeness, should not be imputed to her person, as a
ground of guilt; and that one single witness to one fact and another
single witness to another fact" were not to be esteemed "two witnesses
in a matter capital." No Executive Magistrate has left a record more
honorable to his name, than that of Bradstreet, on this occasion. If his
principles had been heeded, not a conviction could have been obtained,
in 1692. It was because of his known opposition, that his two sons were
cried out upon and had to fly for their lives. That Brattle was
justified in naming Danforth, in this connection, the conversation of
that person with Sewall, on the fifteenth of October, proves. It is
understood, by many indications, that, although, in former years,
inclined to the popular delusions of the day, touching witchcraft,
Willard was an opponent of the prosecutions; and Brattle must be
regarded as having had means of judging of Increase Mather's views and
feelings, on the eighth of October.

This singling out of the father, thereby distinguishing him from the
son, must, I think, be conclusive evidence, to every man who candidly
considers the circumstances of the case and the purport of the document,
that Brattle did not consider Cotton Mather entitled to be named in the
honored list.

Brattle further says: "Excepting Mr. Hale, Mr. Noyes, and Mr. Parris,
the Rev. Elders, almost throughout the whole country, are very much
dissatisfied." The word "almost," leaves room for others to be placed in
the same category with Hale, Noyes, and Parris. The Reviewer argues that
because Cotton Mather is not named at all, in either list, therefore he
must be counted in the first!

The father and son were associate Ministers of the same Church; they
shared together a great name, fame, and position; both men of the
highest note, here and abroad, conspicuous before all eyes, standing,
hand in hand, in all the associations and sentiments of