[73] It is singular that Gov. Hutchinson did not give the date
of this confession, which is noted in Calef. In this manuscript he
says, “sometime after.” In the final draft he says, “it was not long
before one of the judges was sensible of his error.” The confession
was made January 14, 1696-7, nearly five years after the error was
committed to which he alludes. Up to this time, he gave little or no
evidence of contrition in his Diary. He was now under deep domestic
affliction. Of his thirteen children he had lost eight. On the 25th of
December, 1696, he buried his little Sarah, two years old, and on the
22d of May previous an infant son. His Diary shows that his mind was in
a state of abject despondency. After the religious type of the period
he regarded these repeated strokes of Divine Providence as brought
upon him by his own unworthiness. On the 11th of January, three days
before the appointed fast, he writes, “God helped me to pray more than
ordinarily, that he would make up our loss in the burial of our little
daughter and other children, and that [he] would give us a child to
serve him, pleading with him as the institutor of marriage, and the
author of every good work.”
Calef (p. 144) gives an abstract from memory of Judge Sewall’s
confession; and Dr. Abiel Holmes, who had seen the Diary, gives, in
_American Annals_ (vol. ii. p. 9), a brief extract. The following,
copied, by permission, from his original Diary now in possession of the
Massachusetts Historical Society, is the paper entire:
[Sidenote: _N. B. Bill put up at Fast._]
“Copy of the Bill I put up on the Fast Day, giving it to Mr. Willard
as he passed by, and standing up at the reading of it, and bowing when
finished, in the afternoon.
“Samuel Sewall, sensible of the reiterated strokes of God upon himself
and family; and being sensible, that as to the guilt contracted upon
the opening of the late Commission of Oyer and Terminer, at Salem (to
which the order of this day relates), he is, upon many accounts, more
concerned than any that he knows of, desires to take the blame and
shame of it; asking pardon of men, and especially desiring prayers
that God, who has an unlimited authority, would pardon that sin,
and all other his sins, personal and relative: and according to his
infinite benignity and sovereignty, not visit the sin of him, or of
any other, upon himself or any of his, nor upon the land: but that he
would powerfully defend him against all temptations to sin, for the
future; and vouchsafe him the efficacious, saving conduct of his word
and spirit.”
The following entry is the first indication I find in his diary, of
sensitiveness or compunction for the part he took in the witchcraft
trials. It was made December 24, 1696, while his little Sarah lay dead
in his house: “Sam [his son] recites to me, in Latin, Matthew xii. from
the 6th to the end of the 12th verse. The 7th verse [Quod si nossetis
quid sit, misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium, non condemnassetis
inculpabiles] did awfully bring to mind the Salem tragedy.”
The entire confession of Judge Sewall, its date and attending
circumstances, will correct erroneous impressions concerning it. The
subject matter confessed covers but one point: “the guilt contracted
upon the opening of the late commission of Oyer and Terminer at Salem.”
The court was opened June 2, 1692. We cannot be in doubt as to the
nature of the guilt then contracted. It was the adoption of a rule
of the court, by which the records made, and depositions received,
at the preliminary examinations (which consisted almost wholly of
spectral evidence), were introduced, sworn to, and received as legal
testimony in the trials of the accused. Out of this rule, which was
wholly illegal, grew all the fatal results of the Salem trials. Judge
Sewall was a parishioner of Samuel Willard, of the Old South Church
in Boston, who regarded such evidence as the “Devil’s testimony”; and
whose judicious conduct during the trials is worthy of the highest
commendation. He was the intimate friend of Increase and Cotton Mather,
who both held similar views. Three days before (March 31), Cotton
Mather had written to John Richards, one of the judges, cautioning him
against the use of spectral testimony. The letter, although addressed
to his own parishioner, was doubtless intended for, and considered by,
the whole court, and is called, by himself and his son, the “letter to
the judges.” The letter says: “If mankind have thus far once consented
unto the credit of diabolical representations, the door is opened for
the devils to obtain, from the courts in the invisible world, a license
to proceed unto most hideous desolations upon the repute and repose of
such as have been kept from the great transgression. Perhaps there are
wise and good men, that may be ready to style him that shall advance
this caution, _a witch advocate_; but, in the winding up, this caution
will certainly be wished for.” (_Mass. Soc.’s Hist. Coll._, xxxviii. p.
393.) In the face of such influences and associations Judge Sewall gave
his voice in the court for legalizing spectral testimony!
But for his confession we might never have known the position of Judge
Sewall on the matter of spectral evidence, then the great question of
debate in the Province; or have surmised the position of his three
Boston associates, Richards, Winthrop and Sergeant. Saltonstall, living
in Haverhill, did not attend the sittings of the court. The views of
chief justice Stoughton in favor of admitting spectral testimony are
well known; and those of the three Salem members of the commission,
Hathorne, Corwin and Gedney, we have before us in the records of their
examinations, than which nothing more atrocious can be imagined. If the
four Boston members had stood out against the views of Stoughton and
the Salem members, there had been a tie in the commission. Judge Sewall
says, that, in the guilt contracted, “he is, upon many accounts, more
concerned than any that he knows of.” How can this be? Was it a morbid
utterance of his desponding mind; or has it an historical significance?
He was not at the head of the court, nor its most influential member.
Nothing appears to show that he was zealous, as Stoughton was, on
this point. The remark would be explained, if he alone, of the Boston
judges, went over to Stoughton’s views; and, by a majority vote, fixed
the policy of the court. I know of no evidence outside the confession
to sustain this hypothesis; and it is here thrown out only for the
purpose of eliciting further information as to the position of the
other three Boston judges. Brattle intimates that the members of the
court were not a unit in their views. He says, “But although the
chief judge and _some of the other judges_ be very zealous in these
proceedings,” &c. I have seen no evidence that Richards, Winthrop, or
Sergeant, after the policy of the court was fixed, did not sustain the
action of their associates. The two theories respecting diabolical
agency, which were then the subject of debate, I have treated at some
length in _North American Review_, vol. cviii. pp. 337-397.