- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
On June 10, 1692 Bridget Bishop was executed for witchcraft and by September 22, 20 people had been put to death and over a hundred more imprisoned. The madness didnt stop until the wife of the governor overseeing the trials was accused. Subsequently the court prosecuting witchcraft cases was dismissed. On January 14, 1697, a day of fasting and repentance was set aside in remorse for the travesty. At that time many of the men responsible confessed their error and guilt. In 1711 Massachusetts paid 600 pounds in restitution for the sufferings inflicted during the summer of 1692.
In 1700 Robert Calef published a book about the witchunts of Salemtown. The trials and subsequent executions he said were a result of delusions and envy, hatred, pride, cruelty, and malice. In vivid satirical style the crowd is pictured as a bloody throng, the leaders as wolves among sheep. He insinuates that the ones who plead guilty were cowards. The countryside starting from Salemtown he paints as littered with the mangled remains of people victimized in a tragic infamous rampage. To my knowledge no one has successfully contradicted him except Cotton Mather who called it slander. The only thing in the way of a defense was based on interpretation of dreams. Otherwise known as spectral analysis.
It is interesting to note that he spent more time describing spectral analysis then he did claiming Scriptural authority for what he did. He claims that a people [the Puritans] were accomplishing the promise of old made to our blessed Jesus, that we should have the uttermost parts of the earth. For one thing in the only reference to the uttermost part of the earth in the New Testament is after the resurrection, on the mount of Olives, where Jesus told the apostles But ye shall receive power and be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem Judea Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. (Acts 1:8). For one thing, this is not a promise made to Jesus, its commandment from him (a.k.a. the great commission). For another, they are being instructed to preach the gospel in power not settle in foreign lands. And there is nothing at all about witches.
I have to wonder how Christians who not only believe the Bible but strive to abhere to its message could get caught up in this kind of hysteria. Throughout the Gospels and in the book of Acts, Jesus and the Apostles are occasionally confronted by people said to be demon possessed but react quit differently. Instead of reacting violently, or dragging them to a court in chains, the demon is ordered to remove itself. This was done by Jesus and his disciples (Mt 7:22; 8:31; 10:8 etc.) and is still practiced by many Christians to this day, Protestant and Catholic alike. Apparently the people in Salem had trouble believing in the power of God to deliver them from the power of the Devil, but had no trouble at all believing in the ability of the Devil to inflict harm upon them. It wasnt their faith that was to blame but the lack of it. Ulterior motives could account for a great deal as well.
The glaring fact that all property of those convicted was seized. This was part of the inquisition as well. They knew the passage that condemned witchcraft and prescribed death for such an offense (Dt 18:10,11). I sometimes wonder if they had forgotten the commandment Thou shall not covet(Ex 20:17) in the process. They should have forgotten the former and remembered the latter. Then theres the nonsense that passed for evidence.
Spectral evidence and the testimony of a group of rather disturbed teenage girls was the primary evidence offered. These girls had been involved with a woman named Tituba who practiced voodoo fortune telling. Sometime later the girls were supposedly afflicted by the Devil or maybe even possessed. Now weather or not they actually were is hard to say but if they were, why would someone rely on the testimony of people under the influence of the devil anyway? Thats not just unchristian its insane!
The whole thing was a complete travesty. A travesty not uncommon in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries where hundreds of thousands of people were put to death. It wasnt as bad in England because under common law it was just a misdemeanor for a long time. That changed in 1604 when death was prescribed but even then few were actually executed. Also common law provides certain rights to the accused. Not the least of which is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In the rest of Europe burning witches was quite common while in England it was relatively rare. These common law rights are the forerunner of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The common law system of justice wasn't something we got rid of after the Revolution. If anything it was having the common law rights that people had become accustomed to, denied, that led to rebellion. Sometimes not just how people were prosecuted was bizarre but often who they accused.
A child as young as 4 or 5 was imprisoned. Now, first off, how much witchcraft could this baby have actually learned. And more importantly, Id really like to know where in the Bible it says to treat children in this manner. Even if she was practicing black magic, which is ridicules, Jesus never told anyone to do any such thing, to any child, for any reason. In fact Jesus made it clear that he takes the mistreatment of children rather personally But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mt. 18:6). They put 5 year old Dorcas Good not just in jail, but in chains! Was this little one a believer I wonder? Were there no millstones available to these people?
Apparently people who confessed were not convicted while people who were openly defiant were put to death. For instance Sarah Good was very poor and had to beg to help support her family. She was known to have an unpleasant disposition especially with people who refused to give her anything. The evidence against her was spectral evidence, and the deranged teenage girls testimony. There was also Sarah Osgood who had lived with her husband before they were married. She also had failed to attend for over a year. This sort of behavior made one real unpopular in Salemtown. And apparently, unpopular women were the earliest targets but not the only ones. Martha Corey was considered respectable but was openly hostile toward the witch trials. Not only had she refused to attend the earlier trials but unsaddled her husbands horse and hid the saddle when her husband tried to go. At Coreys trial she even testified that she was a Christian (Gospel woman) and had nothing to do with witchcraft. The deranged teenagers said she was a witch and when it was your word against theirs youd lose.
Rebecca Nurse was a 71-year-old woman who denied the validity of the spectral evidence and questioned the authority of the court. Her sisters Sarah Cloyce and Mary Easty defended her as did 40 others who signed a petition that was submitted to the court all to no avail. Far from being an isolated incident there is a definite pattern here. While the trial was going on Samuel Parris preached a sermon suggesting that Nurse was guilty. Her sister, Cloyce got up and walked out, slamming the door behind her. It a couple of days they were accusing her of being a witch.
In May the colony got a new governor who set up a special court to settle the witch trials. The proceeding continued pretty much as they had before. Property was seized, spectral evidence was used, and the accused was assumed guilty until proven innocent. The fact that the teenage girls testimony was used is inconsistent with the religious and legal practice of the times. They are considered to be morally and mentally inferior to men. So why was their testimony so damning for the accused? Rebecca Nurse was actually acquitted but the teenage girls raised such a fuss the court reconsidered and reversed their decision. They not only accused their neighbors, in fact, they often testified in the surrounding areas against people they had never met. Anarchy ruled the summer of 1692 in Salemtown. The real motives for their actions may not be known but one can speculate as to what constitutes a witch-hunt mentality in modern times.
The fact that they were Calvinists can account for the fact that they believed in the devil but had no idea how to deal with him. They had been taught that there was a devil but never allowed to expel the demon from people that were possessed. This is simply unbiblical. The fact that very little, if any, scripture was used to support witch trials is significant. However when the people from the jury and some of the magistrates later confessed their error and guilt in the matter. A well-ordered list of Biblical referances was included, complete with book, chapter and verse (Implying authority). Cotton Mathers on the other hand makes a sting of disjointed general referance to biblical images and phrases in the opening section of More Wonders however, in his discussion about the trial he seems obsessed with spectral evidence. Neither the name of Christ or the authority of scripture is even suggested. I have to wonder if Mathers wasnt dabbling in the occult himself. He seemed more fascinated with dream interruption then he did the Bible. The problem wasnt religion it was greed and no judicial restraint for the prosecutors.
Grace and peace,
Mark
In 1700 Robert Calef published a book about the witchunts of Salemtown. The trials and subsequent executions he said were a result of delusions and envy, hatred, pride, cruelty, and malice. In vivid satirical style the crowd is pictured as a bloody throng, the leaders as wolves among sheep. He insinuates that the ones who plead guilty were cowards. The countryside starting from Salemtown he paints as littered with the mangled remains of people victimized in a tragic infamous rampage. To my knowledge no one has successfully contradicted him except Cotton Mather who called it slander. The only thing in the way of a defense was based on interpretation of dreams. Otherwise known as spectral analysis.
It is interesting to note that he spent more time describing spectral analysis then he did claiming Scriptural authority for what he did. He claims that a people [the Puritans] were accomplishing the promise of old made to our blessed Jesus, that we should have the uttermost parts of the earth. For one thing in the only reference to the uttermost part of the earth in the New Testament is after the resurrection, on the mount of Olives, where Jesus told the apostles But ye shall receive power and be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem Judea Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. (Acts 1:8). For one thing, this is not a promise made to Jesus, its commandment from him (a.k.a. the great commission). For another, they are being instructed to preach the gospel in power not settle in foreign lands. And there is nothing at all about witches.
I have to wonder how Christians who not only believe the Bible but strive to abhere to its message could get caught up in this kind of hysteria. Throughout the Gospels and in the book of Acts, Jesus and the Apostles are occasionally confronted by people said to be demon possessed but react quit differently. Instead of reacting violently, or dragging them to a court in chains, the demon is ordered to remove itself. This was done by Jesus and his disciples (Mt 7:22; 8:31; 10:8 etc.) and is still practiced by many Christians to this day, Protestant and Catholic alike. Apparently the people in Salem had trouble believing in the power of God to deliver them from the power of the Devil, but had no trouble at all believing in the ability of the Devil to inflict harm upon them. It wasnt their faith that was to blame but the lack of it. Ulterior motives could account for a great deal as well.
The glaring fact that all property of those convicted was seized. This was part of the inquisition as well. They knew the passage that condemned witchcraft and prescribed death for such an offense (Dt 18:10,11). I sometimes wonder if they had forgotten the commandment Thou shall not covet(Ex 20:17) in the process. They should have forgotten the former and remembered the latter. Then theres the nonsense that passed for evidence.
Spectral evidence and the testimony of a group of rather disturbed teenage girls was the primary evidence offered. These girls had been involved with a woman named Tituba who practiced voodoo fortune telling. Sometime later the girls were supposedly afflicted by the Devil or maybe even possessed. Now weather or not they actually were is hard to say but if they were, why would someone rely on the testimony of people under the influence of the devil anyway? Thats not just unchristian its insane!
The whole thing was a complete travesty. A travesty not uncommon in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries where hundreds of thousands of people were put to death. It wasnt as bad in England because under common law it was just a misdemeanor for a long time. That changed in 1604 when death was prescribed but even then few were actually executed. Also common law provides certain rights to the accused. Not the least of which is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In the rest of Europe burning witches was quite common while in England it was relatively rare. These common law rights are the forerunner of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The common law system of justice wasn't something we got rid of after the Revolution. If anything it was having the common law rights that people had become accustomed to, denied, that led to rebellion. Sometimes not just how people were prosecuted was bizarre but often who they accused.
A child as young as 4 or 5 was imprisoned. Now, first off, how much witchcraft could this baby have actually learned. And more importantly, Id really like to know where in the Bible it says to treat children in this manner. Even if she was practicing black magic, which is ridicules, Jesus never told anyone to do any such thing, to any child, for any reason. In fact Jesus made it clear that he takes the mistreatment of children rather personally But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mt. 18:6). They put 5 year old Dorcas Good not just in jail, but in chains! Was this little one a believer I wonder? Were there no millstones available to these people?
Apparently people who confessed were not convicted while people who were openly defiant were put to death. For instance Sarah Good was very poor and had to beg to help support her family. She was known to have an unpleasant disposition especially with people who refused to give her anything. The evidence against her was spectral evidence, and the deranged teenage girls testimony. There was also Sarah Osgood who had lived with her husband before they were married. She also had failed to attend for over a year. This sort of behavior made one real unpopular in Salemtown. And apparently, unpopular women were the earliest targets but not the only ones. Martha Corey was considered respectable but was openly hostile toward the witch trials. Not only had she refused to attend the earlier trials but unsaddled her husbands horse and hid the saddle when her husband tried to go. At Coreys trial she even testified that she was a Christian (Gospel woman) and had nothing to do with witchcraft. The deranged teenagers said she was a witch and when it was your word against theirs youd lose.
Rebecca Nurse was a 71-year-old woman who denied the validity of the spectral evidence and questioned the authority of the court. Her sisters Sarah Cloyce and Mary Easty defended her as did 40 others who signed a petition that was submitted to the court all to no avail. Far from being an isolated incident there is a definite pattern here. While the trial was going on Samuel Parris preached a sermon suggesting that Nurse was guilty. Her sister, Cloyce got up and walked out, slamming the door behind her. It a couple of days they were accusing her of being a witch.
In May the colony got a new governor who set up a special court to settle the witch trials. The proceeding continued pretty much as they had before. Property was seized, spectral evidence was used, and the accused was assumed guilty until proven innocent. The fact that the teenage girls testimony was used is inconsistent with the religious and legal practice of the times. They are considered to be morally and mentally inferior to men. So why was their testimony so damning for the accused? Rebecca Nurse was actually acquitted but the teenage girls raised such a fuss the court reconsidered and reversed their decision. They not only accused their neighbors, in fact, they often testified in the surrounding areas against people they had never met. Anarchy ruled the summer of 1692 in Salemtown. The real motives for their actions may not be known but one can speculate as to what constitutes a witch-hunt mentality in modern times.
The fact that they were Calvinists can account for the fact that they believed in the devil but had no idea how to deal with him. They had been taught that there was a devil but never allowed to expel the demon from people that were possessed. This is simply unbiblical. The fact that very little, if any, scripture was used to support witch trials is significant. However when the people from the jury and some of the magistrates later confessed their error and guilt in the matter. A well-ordered list of Biblical referances was included, complete with book, chapter and verse (Implying authority). Cotton Mathers on the other hand makes a sting of disjointed general referance to biblical images and phrases in the opening section of More Wonders however, in his discussion about the trial he seems obsessed with spectral evidence. Neither the name of Christ or the authority of scripture is even suggested. I have to wonder if Mathers wasnt dabbling in the occult himself. He seemed more fascinated with dream interruption then he did the Bible. The problem wasnt religion it was greed and no judicial restraint for the prosecutors.
Grace and peace,
Mark
