Religion-Witchcraft

The Emotional Depth of Religious Expression and Belief in the 1600s-1700s

We in the 21st century cannot understand the pervasive role of religion in the 1600s and 1700s. But even very devout people today would have seemed irreligious to many people in colonial times. Many people today would say -- perhaps emphatically -- "Of course I believe in God. Of course I believe in heaven and hell. Of course I believe that God will punish sinners and that Jesus will save me." (And of course many people today would not say anything so dogmatic.)

But we need only read a sampling of wills and other documents from colonial times to get a sense of the strength and pervasiveness ot belief in those times. Our ancestor Thomas Sanford began his will (1681) in this way:

"First, I comitt my soul into ye hands of God through Jesus Christ, in whom alone I hope to be saved; and my body to be decently interred, & for my worldly estate I dispose of as followeth:"

Curiously, this sounds more formulaic and formal than heart-felt (but who can know?), but in spite of the the formulaic style, the words may reflect his real beliefs: even if they were not as passionate as those of some of his peers. Perhaps this would explain why he left the Massachusetts Colony -- a hotbed of Puritanism -- and why he didn't stop in Hartford -- another Puritan center -- but went on to Milford, which may have been less pervasively religious.

But some fifty years after Thomas Sanford's death, the colonies were swept by a vast religious revival called the Great Awakening. Many dyed-in-the-wool Puritans disapproved of it, because it was strongly emotional. Puritans were more for a stoic acceptance of the difficulties of life, with the authorities enforcing proper behavior; feelings really didn't enter into it.

Perhaps in high school or college you read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," written in 1741, which, with the emotional response it provoked in his listeners, was the stereotypical expression of the Great Awakening. Edwards delivered this sermon to a famously hard-hearted congregation, so what he said may have been a bit overstated in order to make an impression on them. But in some ways I'm sure it represented the theology of the 1600s-1700s, with the addition of the emotional component of the Great Awakening. In case you missed this pleasure, let me summarize and paraphrase:

You are a wretched, miserable sinner, more loathsome in God's eyes than the most disgusting insect. You do not deserve to be alive. You are alive only because God has delayed dropping you into the fires of hell. Even now, though you are not aware of it, you are suspended by the merest thread over the flames, and at any moment God could drop you into the eternal torment you deserve.

This sermon met with such a powerful response that Edwards preached it again and again over the years, and every time listeners would collapse and cry out and writhe on the floor. It is possible that both Samuel and Lemuel Sanford heard, or at least heard of, this sermon, and that their very real fear of God was intensified by the imagery of Jonathan Edwards' sermon.

Usually the wording of personal documents of this period does not sound formulaic, but rather like Samuel Sanford's Confession of Faith, probably written shortly before his death in 1781. Such Confessions tend to be longer than the religious phrasing in wills, and much more explicit and passionate:

"I was as a fool with a pride in my hand but no heart to improve, ye same as 17 prov 16 [Proverbs 17:16]. I was reddy to fear that god would leave me to myself to perrish in my sins for when I would Do good evl was present with me.... I was awakened by the death of sum persons which put me in mind of my great & last chang.... I hop god hath made me sensable that I am a siner and that I was shapen iniquity & conceived in sin. I desire to cum unto Jesus christ tho I am most unworthy, yet i fear to neglect such great offers least I should Dishonor god. "

Lemuel Sanford's will, Mar 1777, two years before he died, sounds similarly heartfelt:

"I Lemuel Sanford,of Redding, in Fairfield County and Colony of Connecticut in New England, being of sound, disposing mind & memory as well as in usual bodily health, God be praised therefor, calling to mind my own mortality and not knowing the day of my death, and knowing that it is appointed to all once to die; Do make and ordain this my last Will & Testament -- and first of all I give my soul into the Hand of God who gave chearfully trusting in his covenanted mercy in Jesus Christ for the salvation thereof: and my body I recommend to the earth to be decently buried at the discretion of my Executors hereafter named, nothing doubting of the glorious resurrection and hoping for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, and as touching that worldly estate with which it hath pleased God to bless me, I give, bequeath and devise in manner following: [here follows his list of bequests]

World-View of the Colonists

"Why were our ancestors so gullible?" we almost instinctively ask, we who pride ourselves on our scientific world-view. But think a moment. Science: Chemistry did not exist, nor knowledge of germs or disease.

Yet events need explanation. The best our ancestors could do was accept that causes were beyond their comprehension, but then they needed to go a step further and conclude that good things were caused by God, and bad things, conversely, must be caused by Satan. And bad people must be in league with Satan. And Satan is constantly attacking us by seducing people to do his work. (I recall reading, several years ago, about a mold that produced aflatoxins. Cattle would eat moldy grass, and the aflatoxins would kill them. Research indicated fairly conclusively that in one case of cattle deaths in colonial New England, aflatoxins were the probable cause. But colonists knew nothing of this. Rather, several village ladies were convicted of witchcraft because of these cattle deaths.)

Anne Hutchinson

In 1634, just a couple of years after Thomas Sanford came, an inappropriately educated young woman arrived in Massachusetts. Her father had taught her to read the Bible and to think for herself. What her reading and thinking produced was an unacceptable set of conclusions:

1) Clergymen and other authorities are not necessarily right.

2) People are equal: even mere women are equal to men, and native Americans are equal to colonists.

3) Believers are saved by faith, and their salvation is not jeopardized if they sin.

She began holding Bible study classes for women at her home, but then began admitting men as well, and eventually, when the class grew to about eighty, it had to move to the neighborhood church.

She was eventually tried as a heretic, perhaps less because her views were confrontational and heretical than for the fact that she had so many followers -- a threat to the authorities. And for the fact that all this is being done by a woman, who should have known her place.

She and her family were banished, and moved to Rhode Island, and after that to Pelham Bay, in the Bronx, New York. Several years later they were massacred by Indians whom they had befriended but who apparently secretly hated all colonists because they had been so mistreated by the earlier Dutch settlers.

Andrew and Mary Sanford -- Witches?

As we have seen, Andrew Sanford's brother Thomas and his uncle Andrew Warner spent five years or so in the Boston area -- long enough to have heard of, and perhaps come into contact with, Anne Hutchinson. When Andrew Warner moved to the new settlement of Hartford, Anne Hutchinson had not yet been charged, but was already being criticized by the Puritan leadership of Boston. Was this a factor in his decision to relocate to Hartford? We don't know. But probably ideas had been planted. When Andrew Sanford arrived in Hartford a few years later and soon married, his wife either already had Hutchinsonian leanings (acquired during the time she and her family had spent in Boston), or may have picked them up from Andrew Warner and others in his circle. So Andrew Sanford probably acquired heretical ideas either from his uncle, or his new wife, or others in their circle of friends.

And Andrew and Mary apparently could not keep their mouths shut. They had to "spread the good word" by holding Bible study classes like Anne Hutchinson's. A suggestion has been made that they were Quakers, but Quakers as such were more prevalent in Pennsylvania; there were few in New England. But Anne Hutchinson's theology may have been very similar to Quaker theology. And anyone who questioned the authorities or the prevailing beliefs was, by definition, a witch and in league with Satan. (After all, what else could cause someone to challenge the authorities and doubt the truth?)

Andrew and Mary certainly got into serious trouble in Hartford. They were both indicted for witchcraft or for holding public meetings other than those prescribed by the elders or for dealings with 'Sathan.' The records show that he was 'accused' June 6, 1662, and very soon after tried in court by a jury; that the verdict of the jury was, 'some thought guilty, some strongly suspected,' result, a disagreement.

It further appears that the wife Mary was indicted June 13, 1662, and soon tried, whether with her husband has not been learned. The verdict in her case, it is certain, was 'Guilty,' which of course, meant execution. The actual record of the execution has not been found, but it is morally certain that she was executed.

We don't know why it took about five years for Andrew to leave Hartford after the execution of his wife. Certainly it must have been difficult for him to continue to interact with neighbors who were involved in her conviction. It may be that his brothers Nathaniel and Robert (who by then had also moved to Hartford) provided him some comfort, and it may have taken him time to settle his affairs preparatory to moving to Milford.

Interestingly his uncle Andrew Warner had already had "religious troubles" in Hartford (yes, and in Boston before that) and had chosen in 1656 -- six years before Andrew and Mary Sanford were charged with witchcraft -- to move to the new community of Hadley, Massachusetts, about fifty miles north up the Connecticut River. We may assume that his "troubles" were of the same sort that later got Andrew and Mary Sanford into even worse difficulties.