Who helped the little clergyman lift and hold the heavy gun? He says it was "_an Indian_." But Mather says, "none of the spectators ever saw any such Indian; but they _supposed the black man_ (as the witches call the _devil_, and they generally say he _resembles an Indian_) might have given him that assistance." That sentence illumines many a dark spot in our ancient witchcraft. The witches, or clairvoyants, whether accusers or accused, were not accustomed to speak of seeing _the devil_. It is fairly questionable whether any one among them ever spoke of seeing _the devil_, or of having any interview with _him_, or knowledge of _him_ obtained by personal observation. It was _man_ whom they saw. They spoke of the black _man_. Mather says that was their name for _the devil_. We doubt it. What they saw failed to present a semblance of Cloven-foot, with horns, tail, and hoofs, and did not suggest to them an idea of _the devil_. The substitution of devil for black man, or the regarding the two as synonymous, was Mather's work, and not that of the clairvoyants. And who was _the black man_? Mather informs us that those whose optics could see him "generally say he _resembles an Indian_." If he resembled an Indian, is not the inference very fair that he was an Indian? Yes. "Black man" obviously was applied by clairvoyants to designate any Indian spirit, and spirits of human beings probably were the only spirits whom their inner vision ever beheld. Thanks to you, Mather, for recording that explanatory sentence. The devil you fought against was your brother man--was earth-born--and when seen and conferred with not very formidable. Your clairvoyants, or witches, saw and heard occult men, women, children, beasts, and birds, but never spoke of seeing your ecclesiastical devil. The human beings whom they beheld varied in size from little children to tall men, and in complexion from black to white--even up to glorious brightness. Your informants never used the word _devil_ in their descriptions. You misreported them, as Cheever did Tituba; Calef followed your lead, and subsequent historians have copied from both you and him. You also state that Burroughs was "_foolish_ enough to say that an Indian" helped him. Was it foolish in him to state the truth? Your own witnesses en masse say his helper _resembled_ an Indian--he said the assistant _was_ an Indian. Why didn't you take the words of your own witnesses as corroborative of the man's statement? They surely were so, and they give us a true presentation of the case. The reason of your course is obvious; the creed of your times deemed any spirit visitant or helper to be the devil himself.