“NOTE.—­25th March, 1692.  I discoursed said sister in my study about her grand error aforesaid, and also then read to her what I had written as above to be read to the church; and said Sister Sibley assented to the same with tears and sorrowful confession.”

This proceeding was of more importance than appears, perhaps, at first view.  It was one of Mr. Parris’s most skilful moves.  The course, pursued by the “afflicted” persons had, thus far, in reference to those engaged in the prosecutions, been in the right direction.  But it was manifest, after the exhibitions they had given, that they wielded a fearful power, too fearful to be left without control.  They could cry out upon whomsoever they pleased; and against their accusations, armed as they were with the power to fix the charge of guilt upon any one by giving ocular demonstration that he or she was the author of their sufferings, there could be no defence.  They might turn, at any moment, and cry out upon Parris or Lawson, or either or both of the deacons.  Nothing could withstand the evidence of their fits, convulsions, and tortures.  It was necessary to have and keep them under safe control, and, to this end, to prevent any outsiders, or any injudicious or intermeddling people, from holding intimacy with them.  Parris saw this, and, with his characteristic boldness of action and fertility of resources, at once put a stop to all trouble, and closed the door against danger, from this quarter.

Samuel Sibley was a member of the church, and a near neighbor of Mr. Parris.  He was about thirty-six years of age.  His wife Mary was thirty-two years of age, and also a member of the church.  They were persons of respectable standing and good repute.  Nothing is known to her disadvantage, but her foolish connection with the mystical operations going on in Mr. Parris’s family; and of this she was heartily ashamed.  Her penitent sensibility is quite touchingly described by Mr. Parris.  It is true that what she had done was a trifle in comparison with what was going on every day in the families of Mr. Parris and Thomas Putnam:  but she had acted “rashly,” without “advisedness” from the right quarter, under the lead of “ignorant persons;” and therefore it was necessary to make a great ado about it, and hold her up as a warning to prevent other persons from meddling in such matters.  Her husband was an uncle of Mary Walcot, one of the afflicted children; and it was particularly important to keep their relatives, and members of their immediate families, from taking any part or action in connection with them, except under due “advisedness,” and the direction of persons learned in such deep matters.  The family connections of the Sibleys were extensive, and a blow struck at that point would be felt everywhere.  The procedure was undoubtedly effectual.  After Mary Sibley had been thus awfully rebuked and distressingly exposed for dealing with “John Indian,” it is not likely that any