Cotton Mather, Samuel Sewall and Slavery
Gradon Schaub
Angelo State University
2
African slaves existed in New England as early as 1638.1 Slavery presented the
Puritans of New England with a problem: whether the Africans were actually humans
with souls, and if they were human, the morality of enslaving them. Two of the more
vocal commentators on the issue were two Puritans, Cotton Mather and Samuel Sewall.
These two Bostonians came to two different conclusions on the issue. These differences
of opinion by two men of the same town and time period represents the fragmentation
occurring during the second-generation of Puritans colonizers that was splitting the
Puritan consensus of the first generation. By analyzing both men’s writings on the issue,
the aforementioned thesis will be explicated and confirmed.
Cotton Mather was the son of the great Puritan minister, Increase Mather, and
later in his life, Cotton shared, then inherited his father’s pulpit at the Second (North)
Church in Boston. He also came to own one slave, whom he named Onesimus, though
this slave was a gift from a member of his congregation.2
Samuel Sewall was born in England, but he and his family immigrated to the
English colonies in North America. He entered and graduated from Harvard, but did not
enter the clergy, instead becoming a businessman. He also played a role in local politics,
for he was one of the magistrates seating in judgment at the Salem Witch Trials (his role
in the trials was one for which he apologized later).
The two Bostonians knew each and “often exchanged by mail ideas about
scriptural prophecy, bits of verse, translations.”3 Both seem to have been especially pious
and devout believers in the Puritan Christianity of their community, as well. It is
1
Lorenzo Johnston Greene, The Negro in Colonial New England (New York: Atheneum, 1968), 17
Cotton Mather, Diary of Cotton Mather: Volume 1, 1681-1709 (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing
Co., 1911), 579
3
Kenneth Silverman, The Life and Times of Cotton Mather (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984),
199.
2
3
interesting that these two men came to hold such different views about slavery and what
should be done with the slaves. This paper will begin by analyzing first Mather’s most
famous work on the issue then Sewall’s most famous work on the issue. Then these two
works will be compared and will show how the consensus among the Puritans was
splintering.
The more famous work of Mather on the issue of slavery is entitled “The Negro
Christianized. An Essay to Excite and Assist that Good Work, the Instruction of NegroServants in Christianity.” Within the work, Mather began by exhorting the reader that the
greatest and best work a man can do is to bring an unconverted soul to Christ. It was here
that Mather’s primary objective was delineated: that the masters should work to convert
their slaves to Christianity.4 He argued this on the basis that slaves were a part of the
household of the master of the house, and as master of the house, the master was
responsible not only for the physical welfare of his slaves, but also for their spiritual
welfare.
He then presented a controversial idea: the slaves are humans and thus, there
could possibly be God’s elect living among them. “Suppose these Wretched Negroes, to
be the Offspring of Cham (which yet is not so very certain,) yet let us make a Trial,
Whether the CHRIST who dwelt in the Tents of Shem, have not some of His Chosen
among them.”5 His aforementioned belief stemmed from his Calvinistic theology, for
only God would know who the elect were. The above quote also demonstrated one of the
counter-arguments to Mather’s argument: that Africans are the descendants of Cham.
4
Cotton Mather. The Negro Christianized (Boston: B. Green, 1706) 2.
Ibid. Note: The quotations in this paper will use the italicization and capitalization of original text, so as to
retain the original emphasis and meaning of the author.
5
4
Cham was also known in the Bible as Ham, the son of Noah who was cursed by
Noah.6 In the eyes of the Puritans, if the Africans were descendants of Cham, they were
cursed as their forefather was and thus were outside of the possibility of being the elect of
God. But as it were, Mather refuted this argument on the basis that no evidence can be
brought to substantiate the previously mentioned point. Bernard Rosenthal states this
finding quite well in his article Puritan Conscience and New England Slavery, “Cotton
Mather was not only holding the orthodox position that one could not know who was of
the elect, but challenging what he saw as the Biblically unproved argument that blacks
descended from Ham.”7 Thus, Mather reinforced the Calvinist and Puritan notion of
unconditional election, for the slaves and the masters were alike totally depraved, while
refuting a popular argument against the conversion of slaves.
Mather continued in his essay by presenting “rational arguments,” as he called
them, as to why the masters should convert their slaves. His first point was that “the
Great GOD Commands [that masters convert their slaves], and Requires it of you.”8
Thus, his argument began with a divine order; this was perhaps to gain the attention of
his audience. He then used biblical evidence to reinforce this divine order: “Thou shalt
Love thy Neighbor as thy self.…As we have opportunity let us Do Good unto all men,
especially unto them, who are of the [sic] Houshold of Faith.”9 Through these two
biblical quotations, Mather made two points: that the Africans slaves were the neighbors
of the masters and that they were likewise a part of the masters’ household. By making
these two arguments, Mather was making slavery an issue that was much closer to home;
6
For the biblical reference, see Genesis 9:18-27.
Bernard Rosenthal, “Puritan Conscience and New England Slavery” The New England Quarterly 46
(March 1973): 64
8
“The Negro Christianized,” 3.
9
Ibid, 4.
7
5
now if the masters did not convert their slaves, they were not only disobeying Mather, but
also the Bible itself.
His second point was this: “With what Face can you call your selves Christians, if
you do nothing that your Servants also may become Christians?”10 He now questioned
the spiritual “health” of such masters who did not work to convert their slaves to
Christianity. This argument was one of his more emotional ones, because he was playing
upon an old fear inherent in Calvinistic and Puritan dogma: how did one know whether
one was of the elect or of the damned? By playing upon that fear, Mather hoped to
frighten some stubborn, recalcitrant masters into obedience. This fact is evidenced by the
language of the end of the section; he essentially said that any master who used the labor
of the slave, but did not care for his spiritual welfare, was “not…a Master, but a
Monster.”11 The use of the word “Monster” illustrated how Mather wanted those who
did not work towards the conversion of their slaves to think of themselves.
His third point and fourth points are interconnected. The third point was this:
how one treated one’s slave was a good indicator of whether slaves will accept or reject
Christianity, and also an indicator of how strong, or feeble, the attempt of a master was to
convert a slave.12 And the fourth point of his argument was that the masters should
consider the benefits that could be gained by working towards the conversion of their
slaves.13 In both of these points, Mather once again connects slavery and the spiritual
condition of the masters, for if the masters were generous and thankful for the labors of
the slaves, they would do everything in their power to ensure that their slaves were not
10
Ibid.
Ibid, 8.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid, 11.
11
6
worshipping the Devil, but instead were worshipping Jesus Christ.14 Thus, both the
spiritual condition of the slaves and the masters would improve greatly, if the masters
would seriously work towards the slaves’ conversions. To provide incentive, Mather also
made the point that the improvement in spiritual welfare would make the slaves more
profitable to the masters. In making this point, Mather draws upon the biblical example
of the slave Onesimus and quotes from the book of Philemon, “In time past [Onesimus]
was unprofitable to thee, but now he will be profitable.”15 By using the example of
Onesimus, Mather is providing biblical, and thus theological, support for his arguments
concerning the slaves.
However, converting slaves was as far as Mather wanted to take the issue. In
addressing the masters’ fear that once a slave was baptized, he was free of his slavery,
Mather said, “What Law is it, that Sets the Baptised Slave at Liberty? Not the Law of
Christianity: that allows of Slavery; Only it wonderfully Dulcifies, and Mollifies, and
Moderates the Circumstances of it.”16 Because Christianity (according to Mather) does
not outlaw slavery, Mather saw no problem with merely converting slaves, but forcing
them to remain slaves.
However, Mather did not want to stop only at converting the slaves; he wanted
them truly educated in Christianity. In the latter pages of his essay, he includes a
paraphrased version of the Lord’s Prayer, a Shorter Catechism of Christian doctrines for
slaves, and a Longer Catechism of Christian doctrines for slaves. Previous to these
documents, Mather exhorts either the masters themselves or a hired teacher to instruct the
14
Ibid, 9.
Philemon 1:11, as quoted by Mather in Ibid, 14.
16
Ibid, 16.
15
7
slaves in Christianity.17 As these documents and Mather’s exhortation prove, he was not
lobbying for slaves actual, physical freedom, instead he was merely lobbying for their
spiritual freedom.
The previous analysis leads to some interesting conclusions. In writing this essay,
Mather was trying to do several things at the same time. First, he was trying to recenter
Puritan life upon the Bible and theology. This is shown by his first argument being that
God commands the slaves’ conversion by the masters and there could possibly be elect
among the slaves. Secondly, he was trying to maintain the Puritan consensus of the first
generation. By not demanding the actual freedom of the slaves and by possessing a slave
himself, he was not rocking the boat as much as he could have. Though some of his
arguments might have ruffled feathers with some of parishioners, these arguments were
not radical enough to be seen as a dividing point. In fact, as will be shown later, Sewall
made some of the same arguments six years earlier in writing his essay “The Selling of
Joesph: A Memorial.” Mather’s ideas, except for perhaps the intense spiritual education
he wanted the slaves to have, were not novel and did not challenge the Puritan consensus.
Sewall’s writing, however, did.
Sewall’s most famous essay on the issue of slavery was the aforementioned essay
“The Selling of Joesph: A Memorial.” His essay is decidedly shorter than Mather’s, but
this does not lessen its importance. The first sentence of the essay seems like it could
possibly belong in some of the Revolutionary literature of the mid- and late-1700s: “For
as Much as Liberty is in real value next unto Life: None ought to part with it themselves,
or deprive others of it, but upon most mature Consideration.”18 In saying this, he seems
17
18
Ibid, 18.
Samuell Sewall, “The Selling of Joesph: A Memorial” (Boston: B. Green and J. Allen, 1700), 1.
8
to be implying that those who have involved themselves in the slave trade have not
thought their actions through fully and, thus, need to be educated as to why a person’s
liberty must not be so lightly taken. The rest of his essay was an attempt to make the
readers of his day understand that slavery was wrong and should be stopped.
He begins along the same lines as Mather: that both whites and Africans are made
by God and thus equals in the eyes of God.19 However, his argument then takes a sharp
turn away from that of Mather’s. He argues that since all are tainted by original sin that
the relationship of each person to another remains the same.20 Thus, one does not
become superior or inferior to another in any way because all are inherently sinful. This
supposition leads him to this conclusion: “So that Originally, and Naturally, there is no
such thing as Slavery.”21 While Mather had argued that slavery was an accepted
institution under Christian doctrine, Sewall argues that slavery was non-existent; it is
merely a convention made up by humans.
He uses the biblical character of Joseph to provide evidence for and support his
argument. Joseph was a man sold into slavery by his brothers. Though his brothers did
this, Sewall argues that Joseph was no more the property of his brothers than he was the
property of his later owners.22 And as for those who argue that he was property being
exchanged, Sewall stated that when a person argues this he “seems to have forfeited a
great part of his own claim to Humanity.”23 Therefore, slavery not only dehumanizes
those who are enslaved, but also dehumanizes the enslavers.
19
Ibid.
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
20
9
He also makes use of the argument that slavery is not conducive to the most
productive workers. The variety of terrible circumstances that surround the enslavement
of a person—the tearing him or her from his or her family, the horrid conditions of the
voyage across the Atlantic—do not make people more willing to work, but in fact less
willing.24 By questioning not only the validity of slavery as an institution, but also its
efficacy in the realm of productivity, Sewall is reflecting the concerns of his occupation,
a businessman. Mather reflected the concerns of his occupation as well, for his was
primary and only concerned with the spiritual welfare of the slaves. However, it seems
that as a businessman Sewall knew more fully the details of the slaves’ enslavement and
voyage to New England and how terrible an experience that it could be. He was more
concerned with the physical welfare of the slaves than their spiritual welfare.
The rest of Sewall’s essay consists of a list of objections to the freeing of the
slaves and Sewall’s answers to the objection. The first objection was also brought up in
Mather’s essay: that the slaves were “the Posterity of Cham.” However, Sewall’s answer
is much fuller and more satisfying than Mather’s answer. He argues that the slaves are
not the descendants of Cham, and are thus descendants of the Canaanites, but that the
slaves are descendants of Cush, the ancient African kingdom in present-day Ethiopia.25
Interestingly enough, Sewall uses a combination of Biblical passages and a quotation
from the classical author Ovid to support this claim.
The next objection is that the slaves “are brought out of a Pagan Country, into
places where the Gospel is Preached.”26 This is perhaps the answer of a stubborn, yet
24
Ibid, 2.
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
25
10
religious slave trader. But Sewall does let this sophistry blind him. His answer is short:
the means do not justify the ends.
The third objection is that the slaves are prisoners of war and thus are lawfully
bought. Sewall answers: “Every War is upon one side Unjust. An Unlawful War can’t
make lawful Captives. And by Receiving, we are in danger to promote, and partake in
their Barbarous Cruelties”27 Here, once again, Sewall as a businessman is reflected in his
answer. He knows that by buying slaves, the slave traders are creating demand for more
slaves, and thus, are encouraging war among the Africans.
The fourth objection is that the biblical person of Abraham possessed slaves.
Sewall rejects this argument out-of-hand, for “Until the Circumstances of Abraham’s
purchase be recorded, no Argument can be drawn from it.”28 He then goes on to state
that the circumstances surrounding his slaves might have been different and he might
have had them for different reasons.
Sewall finishes his essay by making a statement that Mather made toward the
beginning of his essay: the slaves are the “Offspring of GOD,” but then he takes this one
step further and states, “They ought to be treated with a Respect agreeable.”29
In writing his essay, Sewall shows his purposes and his conclusions to be much
different than Mather’s. Mather thought that according the Christianity slavery was an
acceptable practice; Sewall rejects this and states that slavery is merely a human
convention and naturally it does not exist. In making a statement like this, Sewall seems
to foreshadowing the language and rhetoric of the Revolutionary period and of future
abolitionist movements.
27
Ibid, 3.
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
28
11
Mather seems to have been trying to hold the Puritan consensus together, while
Sewall was tearing it apart. Sewall, though he was still using primarily Biblical evidence
to prove his argument, seems to have been deliberately challenging the views of his day
in order to effect a change that he felt needed to be made.
Both of these great Puritan men were concerned with slavery among themselves.
However, this concern caused them to emphasize different things. Mather emphasized
that the masters should be concerned foremost and utmost with the spiritual welfare of
their slaves, while Sewall wanted these masters to see that the institution they were using
was a flawed one that was taking away the liberty of fellow men. These differences in
opinion and emphasis demonstrate how the Puritan consensus was breaking down in the
second-generation of Puritans.
12
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Mather, Cotton. The Diary of Cotton Mather: Volume 1, 1681-1709. New York:
Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1957.
Mather, Cotton. “The Negro Christianized. An Essay to Excite and Assist that Good
Work, the Instruction of Negro-Servants in Christianity.” Boston: B. Green, 1706
Sewall, Samuel. “The Selling of Joesph: A Memorial.” Boston: B. Green and J. Allen,
1700.
Secondary Sources:
Green, Lorenzo Johnston. The Negro in Colonial New England. New York: Atheneum,
1968.
Rosenthal, Bernard. “Puritan Conscience and New England Slavery.” The New England
Quarterly 46 (March 1973): 62-81.
Silverman, Kenneth. The Life and Times of Cotton Mather. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1984.