Its publication was forthwith called for.  The manuscript was submitted to Increase and Cotton Mather of the North, James Allen and John Bailey of the First, Samuel Willard of the Old South, churches in Boston, and Charles Morton of the church in Charlestown.  It was printed with a strong, unqualified indorsement of approval, signed by the names severally of these the most eminent divines of the country.  The discourse was dedicated to the “worshipful and worthily honored Bartholomew Gedney, John Hathorne, Jonathan Corwin, Esqrs., together with the reverend Mr. John Higginson, pastor, and Mr. Nicholas Noyes, teacher, of the Church of Christ at Salem,” with a preface, addressed to all his “Christian friends and acquaintance, the inhabitants of Salem Village.”  It was republished in London in 1704, under the immediate direction of its author.  The subject is described as “Christ’s Fidelity, the only Shield against Satan’s Malignity;” and the titlepage is enforced by passages of Scripture (Rev. xii. 12, and Rom. xvi. 20).  The interest of the volume is highly increased by an appendix, giving the substance of notes taken by Lawson on the spot, during the examinations and trials.  They are invaluable, as proceeding from a chief actor in the scenes, who was wholly carried away by the delusion.  They describe, in marvellous colors, the wonderful manifestations of diabolical agency in, upon, and through the afflicted children; resembling, in many respects, reports of spiritual communications prevalent in our day, although not quite coming up to them.  These statements, and the preface to the discourse, are given in the Appendix to this volume.  In a much briefer form, it was printed by Benjamin Harris, at Boston, in 1692; and soon after by John Dunton, in London.

Before dismissing Mr. Lawson’s famous sermon, our attention is demanded to a remarkable paragraph in it.  His strong faculties could not be wholly bereft of reason; and he had sense enough left to see, what does not appear to have occurred to others, that there might be a re-action in the popular passions, and that some might be called to account by an indignant public, if not before a stern tribunal of justice, for the course of cruelty and outrage they were pursuing, with so high a hand, against accused persons.  He was not entirely satisfied that the appeal he made in his discourse to the people to suppress and crush out all vestiges of human feeling, and to stifle compassion and pity in their breasts, would prevail.  He foresaw that the friends and families of innocent and murdered victims might one day call for vengeance; and he attempts to provide, beforehand, a defence that is truly ingenious:—­