"John (Proctor), Ipswich, s. of the preced. b. in Eng. rem. in few yrs. to Salem, perhaps freem. 1690, m. Dec. 1662, Eliz. d. of John Thorndike, had prob. by a sec. w. Eliz. Bassett, m. 1 Apr. 1674, William, b. 6 Feb. foll.; Sarah, 28 Jan. 1677; Samuel, 11 Jan. 1686; Elisha, 28 Apr. 1687, d. next yr.; and Abigail, 27 Jan. 1692; of wh. the eldest two were imprison. in the execrable fanaticism of 1692. These ch. were prob. discharg. without trial; but the mo. was one of the first accus. of witchcr. and her h. (to wh. the first w. had brot. ch. Martha, b. 4 June 1666; Mary, 26 Oct. 1667, d. soon; John, 28 Oct. 1668; Mary, again, 30 Jan. 1670; and Thorndike, 15 July 1672, and that w. d. next mo.), for showing proper regard for her, as Hutch. II. 26 and 55 tells, fell under equal suspicion. Both were tried and condemn. on 5th, and on him, 19 Aug. was inflict. the punishm. of death, wh. she escap. by reason of her pregnancy, and bef. the time elaps. in wh. she should have suffer. the power of decision and the devil passed away. Yet four yrs. later, the wid. had to beseech the legislat. to order relief of her husband's prop. from the forfeiture. See Felt II. 484. Too brief is this statement of Mr. Felt, and slightly seems the case to have been misapprehend. by him. No doubt, Gedney, the judge of Probate, was as much bound to maintain the technical law of Eng. in opposition to that of humanity, as his superiors of the other tribunal to assert the institute of Moses against that of common sense; and she 'being convict. and sentenc. of and for the detestab. crime of witchcr.' was 'look. upon as d.-in-law, and left out of the will of her h. and nothing giv. her therein, nor order. her upon the distrib. of the est. of said P.' and the Ct. had the requisite illumina. to decree, that when she produc. the pardon she bec. alive again. The h.'s will was made 2 Aug. so three days bef. the conviction."
