When I first started to read this article I felt as if I were reading something from the Joan of Arc trial. Winthrop starts by telling Hutchinson what she did that lead to her trial, and all he seems to speak of are things that she had said that he did not agree with. This reminded me a lot of the Joan of Arc trial which were based on similar allegations. These two trials are also similar in that the accused is constantly being asked about their faith and whether or not they have any. Hutchinson seems to keep having to explain that she has faith.
Even through the dialect between Winthrop and Hutchinson she continuously asks what she is being charged with and Winthrop seems to be speaking in circles around the same thing. Hutchinson speaks as if she is almost openly mocking Winthrop and the nonsense he is saying. Winthrop tries to get Hutchinson to agree with him but every time she tries to clarify something or ask any question at all he throws a rule and God's name at her. Then Deputy Gov. Thomas Dudley comes to testify against Hutchinson explaining that she was trouble from the start. It seems that everyone just wants her to be found guilty because they do not like her. Dudley tries her to say that she said "the ministers did preach the convent of works." They have a conversation back and forth for about 8-10 lines were he is trying to get her to say this line and but then says he will say she did even though she denied ever saying so. After which a parade of men arrive to speak against Hutchinson all saying "the ministers did preach the convent of works." She continuously has to defend herself and deny the allegations. By the end of the trial it just seems that Winthrop is tired of arguing with Hutchinson and decides to banish her.

Anne Hutchinson

Reading the article about the interview of Anne Hutchinson was actually pretty humorous, though I doubt the Puritans would have thought so. It was very striking how through the entire trial she never seemed to be fazed. She was always cool under pressure and seemed to have an answer for ever accusation she had to face. What I really noticed was how she was very consistent in her answers, and how she seemed to make a good argument to prove her innocence. She was obviously an intelligent woman, and used the bible to further her cause. Even with the arguments brought by the various men, many of them which seem to be set up to trap her and prove her guilt without offering a truly fair representation, are handled skillfully by Hutchinson. She argues quite well to have the men accusing her be put under oath, essentially saying they are lying about certain things they say. It is quite interesting that the men choose not to have the accusers go under oath, basically saying it is alright for them to lie, rather than admit that Hutchinson may have good points and may not be completely in the wrong. There is an explanation that the men weren't willing to take the oath because they realized they were not completely sure of what they had said, yet it was supposed to be sufficient to punish this woman. The hypocrisy does not seem to bother the counsel convening over the trial.

The main charges against her really were political rather than strictly religious. It is true that the two were closely tied together, but she seemed to go against the social mores of the time, rather than against strict religious teachings. As a society that felt gathering together to discuss the Bible and to study it, they should have been pleased that Hutchinson was spreading the word of God. Instead, they didn't agree with a woman being so popular or being in a position of burgeoning power. She seemed to be a threat to the normal way religion was done. Yet she seems to have met the tenets of a calling. She was gifted at what she did, preaching, she was filling a need of the community, and she was answering what she felt to be a calling from God. Of course in the proprietary minded society she was seen as a trouble maker, bringing women into her home and filling their minds with ideas the men were threatened by. Furthermore, she brought men and women at one time into her house, with allegations being made of sexual impropriety. This was obviously something that would be frowned on in the society.

What I felt was most telling in her works is the antinomian views she was said to voice. I think that this is something I noticed early on. If the people follow the ideas of TULIP, they should realize there is no real reason to work on being closer to God or on being good people. They are either saved or they are not. Now, I don't think she believed it completely in that manner, but I do think she realized there was a flaw in the logic of the traditional teaching. Yet at the same time she did think the Bible was worth studying, and I really don't think she was trying to be subversive to the society in which she lived. She was a person who threatened the society by being a strong and charismatic woman, not a meek one. This seems to be her real crime, and she was condemned before the trial ever started.

hey there

God’s promise to his plantation can also be closely related to “calling” but instead for an entire group. Like a “calling” moving to new land is directed by God. Therefore, the Puritans do it with great passion. Many times these moving processes are done successfully through purchase or some sort of agreement. However, we all know that it doesn’t always go down like that. In cases, when Puritans don’t receive the land they believe is God directing them towards, there may be violence. As bible literalists, this may be considered “just” violence or lawful war. As we look back now it seems so wrong and is wrong. But the Puritans saw it as God’s Sovereignty.
We can compare this act of the Puritans to things we often see today and other parts of history. The United States is guilty of this act which is most likely directly influenced by the Puritans. The “trail of tears” or manifest destiny can be related to God’s promise to his plantation. The United States passionately believed they needed the land and they had the right to it because of their organization and power. The Puritans also passionately believed they had right to the land no matter what through God’s order.
Today the U.S. is constantly getting involved in controversial foreign affairs. Our government is obviously very passionate about something whether it is power, God, money, land. These motives motivate our government to do these controversial things the same way the Puritans motive of God influenced their actions.
The Puritans acts can easily be looked back on and criticized because of the harm they may have caused; however, at this point criticism holds no importance. As we learn I think it is more important to know and understand their motives in order to respect their passionate beliefs and keep some sort of peace with in debates and disagreements.

John Winthrop

In John Winthrop’s “A Modell of Christian Charity”, he outlines acceptable behavior for a Christian in regards to charity and morality. This work focuses on the individual roles people must play in their community. He emphasizes living as one community bonded together, feeling the pain and joy of one another. Winthrop believes this can be achieved by showing mercy to your neighbor. Giving above what you can to help your brothers. He preaches the idea of unity and togetherness while implying discrimination. First he ranks people into two categories, the rich and the poor. Then, he describes Gospel law, which appears at regeneracy, which talks of the separation between Christians and non-Christians. Winthrop is addressing that Christians are like minded and thus bonded together. This implies that non-Christians are the “other” and of a different mindset. After this, he describes that under Natural law we are to love everyone but in Gospel law, we don’t have to love them for who they are - we can love them as our enemies. Later on Winthrop talks about how a person can see themselves in others, making love easy. This also implies that if someone looks different, they should be judged and treated differently.
I also think that a major reason why this was written was to unify the settlers who were separated by many miles. Towards the end of the work Winthrop addresses that even though they live far away, they are still members of the same community, bonded together. Was this intended to remind people of what they belonged to? And the duties required? The emphasis on “proper places” and brotherly love make this work seem like the laws of behavior for their community. Winthrop wanted the people to act like this, while also remembering their place in the world, and wrote “A Modell of Christian Charity” to serve as a guide. He obviously wanted people to uphold lives with Christian ideals but my modern brain cannot help looking for possible motives. The people of this time did not govern the way we do today, there was no separation of church and state. When they talked about laws to live and be governed by, they included the Gospel law. Winthrop uses the fear of God to inspire his people to live moral lives. At several points he makes assumptions about society, one of which being that people will be inspired to help their neighbors more when they recognize that they are a united community. Helping your neighbor turns into helping yourself. Winthrop sees value in communal bonds and uses religion, love of God, as the “ligaments”.

Winthrops Ideaology of Love

It interested me how the puritans view love. I at first stereotyped them as uncapable of feeling or expressing any emotion. When the puritans hear the word love, or use it, they do not think of hearts and romantic gestures, or feeling a spark between two people. Instead they are in love with God. Winthrop describes how God created man in his image and so thus he loves humans, and humans should in turn love God. He writes, "love is the bond of perfection". This bond of perfection is not a bond between two people who share love for eachother, instead it is the love of reaching purity. Perfection to the puritans is reaching purity of oneself and allowing God to be pleased with ones perfections. Also, the perfection of God is shown in Winthrops writing. "Christ and his church make one body", he is saying that the unity between church and Christ and those wishing to reach this mecca is important. It's also important to understand that the church and Christ are a "bond of perfection".

I found it interesting that when Winthrop described love he described it between a man and a man (brotherhood) and a woman and her child (offspring). Never did it stem into other components. What about the love of a woman and a man? or a man and his child? Maybe these are implied in aspects of their society, but they seem to be very gender biased, especially in love. Im not sure if he is saying that this can never happen, or doesn't happen, but it's not prominent in his writing. The way I'm seeing it is that he's saying: everyone should love God. We were made in God's image so we should love him to reach perfection. Secondly he's saying to love thy neighbor, brother, etc. All more than likely masculine figures. He's speaking of unity between a society. If they all love eachother then God will seem them as righteous and will be pleased. On the other half though is the idea of only a woman loving her child.

I'm questioning whether or not the puritans see women as loving anything other than just their child. I'm not capturing it in this piece of writing. To me Winthrop is saying that because women have maternal instinct they automatically love their children. However there is no mention of them being capable of loving other elements, perhaps even God. Is anyone else seeing this?

God's Promise

In “God’s Promise to His Plantations,” John Cotton presents us with a more in depth look at the beliefs of the Puritans. He tells us of promises God makes to his people and the various ways in which his people will benefit from said promises. This piece is infused with reminders of the consequences of not following God. “But if you rebel against God, the same God that planted you will also root you out again,” (pg. 16) and “Every Plantation his right Hand hath not planted, shall be rooted up but His Own Plantation shall prosper and flourish” (pg. 19) are two quotes that indicate God’s ability to be wrathful towards those who are not followers in good faith; a key factor in the Puritan lifestyle.
The most interesting thing about this reading for me is that it, like “Christian Calling,” provides the reader with a “checklist” of warrantable reasons for conducting oneself; in this case the Removal from one’s current location to another. Some warrantable reasons were: to obtain knowledge, to obtain goods, to plant a colony, to “imploy one’s Talents and Gifts better elsewhere” (pg, 8) and for the liberty of the Ordinances. It was also warrantable to Remove to avoid Evils, if it were commanded by “Soveraign Authority” or if “some Special Providence of God leads a man unto such a course” (pg. 10). Seeing that there were a number of warrantable causes for Removal, is it fair to say that any reason could be deemed warrantable so long as it meets the criteria listed in Cotton’s “checklist,” and thus making it prosperous for God? It is possible that this checklist may serve to provide future generations with an outline of how to create a plantation in the name of God as well as provide the individual Puritan with a greater sense of purpose in times of distress or questioning. Questioning and challenging the Puritan way would have been viewed as a potential for deviation or weakening of the strength of the community. Therefore the individual must be convinced that the way they (the Puritans) are living is the best way to insure salvation.
“God’s Promise to His Plantation” can also be viewed as a means to validate journeying to the New World. The Puritans were escaping persecution and sought to establish a colony devoted to God; which meets two of the points Cotton raises in the first portion of his writing. Upon creating the new colony, they must discern that they have come in the name of God “or else we are but intruders upon God” (pg. 7). These people who leave must also “go forth with a publick spirit” and have “universal helpfulness” unto others (pg. 18). This universal helpfulness reinforces the belief that a close-knit community was essential to better serve God. The idea of placing the community above the individual is something that is hard for many of us to imagine today when we live in a society that stresses individualism, but are we hurting ourselves and our future by not taking care of our neighbors?

The Synecdoctic Reason For Love

John Winthrop and John Cotton both touch on points of synecdoctic culture in their respective sermons. The reason Winthrop mainly gives for being charitable, which in the context of the time meant to love each other, to other people is that we are all part of one body, the body that connects us all to Christ who is essentially the head of this body. Every p He says that love, encompassing all aspects whether it be just caring about another or helping someone out, are the ligaments that hold this body together. No person is their own separate entity but we are all part of the whole. This is difficult for our current culture to understand because we are very focused on the self. Our self is what matters most to us. Puritan society cannot differentiate between the self and the group because of this connection of the metaphorical body. To care about others is to care about the self because we are all connected. Cotton touches on this towards the end of his sermon when he mentions similar ideas, I believe taken from the same Bible passages, that one should not only looking your things but the things of other. There are a few other instances in the sermon in which there can be a connection made to these ideas, such as the idea of not defrauding creditors. It is important to pay off debts because that is a part of the group well being. Caring for the whole group will bring prosperity. There are many things that we today look on about Puritan culture that is negative. Their intolerance of anything that deviates from what they believe is the right way to live is certainly a negative. However I believe that these views of synecdoctic culture could help us a lot today. Many problems that we now have result from people only caring about individual gain. That viewpoint is responsible for our current economic situation which is threatening to collapse our society which will affect both rich and poor. So by not caring about the group it has the potential to hurt them individually. Winthrop says that there needs to be a rich and a poor, whether that is so is arguable, however he makes it a point that they should both care about each other. Both Winthrop and Cotton touch on the topic of enemies, or people believed to be outside the saved group such as Native Americans. Both say to be kind to these people but it is unclear whether or not these people are part of the body and whether their well being also affects the other individuals. It seems clear that by Puritans actions towards some of these groups that they probably are not considered part of the same body.

Morton Vs. Bradford

One of the questions I enjoyed discussing during last nights class was the idea between who is writing these essays, and who is correct. What makes history appear real to those who read about it? In history there are many different accounts of different events within history. His (or her) story is important in the world, and some perspectives are right on target while others veer away from the realistic approach to what happened. Despite this it is important to understand and hear the different views of each account. Although Bradford and Morton both had very different accounts of the natives, does that make either story less important? How do we know what is real, and how do we know what really happened? The way we can counter this is by reading and focusing on our own opinions about how a specific take on a story makes us feel.

Bradford appears less disenchanted by the natives. The natives seem "aloof" to him at first. Bradford didnt embrace the natives instead he prejudges them, and only until they prove themselves to him, by giving them gifts and helping them, does he somewhat slightly change his appeal of them. Morton on the otherhand appears fascinated with the natives. In chapter VI he intricately describes their appearance. He pays attention to them and writes about how "they seem to have as much modesty as civilized people, and deserve to be applauded for it". Morton has a higher appreciation for the cultural difference between the natives and the new settlers.

This contrast is important because it reflects the different assumptions and biases that are prominent in history. No telling is right, it just forms to the opinion of the person learning about the past.

Morton and the Natives

One of the most interesting/significant parts of the reading for me was the attention and interest placed upon the Native Americans by Thomas Morton. When Morton first began his tale of the Native, I was afraid that the tone would be prematurely set in a naive rut. Yet Morton, was actually interested in the Natives and hardly passed judgment. Morton presented the Natives in a respected manner, giving examples of their dress and mannerisms, proves that Morton was interested and interested in details. I was somewhat disappointed in the reaction or lack there of, when Morton mentioned that some of the Natives were killed with there own knives by some men of Plymouth. I was expecting there to be a retaliation of some sort on Morton's part, but his tone is very unbiased and is not affected by his emotions.
Throughout this piece, Morton reflects a great deal on the workings of the Plymouth government along with the customs/traditions. His attention to detail and otherwise minute circumstances, grabs my attention, as he presents his findings in a rather calm way. Morton is humble in his research and continues with his interest with the Natives throughout this piece. In some parts of this piece, I get the tone that Morton is trying to lay all his findings out, so that the reader can see a more clear picture of what is going on in Plymouth and why he has no reactions to what is going on. Morton by the end, has an entirely different tone and is now using it in a more controlling and demeaning manner, as the Pilgrims were to the Natives. The Pilgrims were pleasant to the Natives until they needed something from them, and then just took what they wanted from the Natives.
Morton brings up a great deal of growth in his “New English Canaan,” but it seems as if Morton has some hard feelings against those that are in power. This power is not a natural power like that of the Natives, but power that is restricted to few people.

Oh Morton

Based on this reading, it seems to me that Morton really did not have a care in the world about anything. He did not care about offending the Separatists in his area, and he did not care that he erected a may pole to demonstrate his following even though it offended many people and he was arrested for it. In my opinion, I see Morton as being somewhat of a fun loving and easy going guy strictly based on the fact that when he writes New Canaan, there is no real structure to it and there are many loop holes in it that are open to interpretation. However, this is the type of audience that I am sure he is trying to attract. I also find it hysterical how Morton portrays the Puritans to be a joke but yet he glorifies the Natives of the land and makes them seem so powerful, and mighty. I think that the way he demonstrates how Natives base their religion on the good hearteness of people, nature and hospitality and how Puritans base their religion on greediness and wealth, almost makes it seem that he is trying to persuade others who read his text, to conform to his ways of life and his religion, rather than strictly Puritanism. By adding humor to what he writes, he is attracting those people who are more laid back and rightfully so would not be following the Puritan religion to begin with because of their personal preferences about how they live their lives. One of my favorite lines in this reading was on page 323 in Chapter XX when Morton writes, "I must needs commend them in this particular, that, though they buy many commodities of our Nation, yet they keep but few, and those of special use." He is basically stating that the Natives may buy things from the new English people that have arrived in their land, but no matter what they see and no matter what is new and exciting to them, they stay true to their beliefs of having very little and depending on the finer things in life. This is contrasted with the ideas of Puritanism, especially in Morton's writings because they are looked at as being greedy, selfish, and only out for themselves and their holy spirit.

Two Views of Morton

I found the two opposing views of Thomas Morton, that of William Bradford and that of Morton himself to be the most interesting part of the reading. In reading Bradford's writing on Morton, he is portrayed as a wicked man. He worships false idols and consorts with barbarian women. He is a threat to civilization because he provides the barbarians with guns. Bradford would have the reader believe that Morton is evil and deserving of punishment. Morton's own account of his time in New England portray a much lighter, and probably nearer to the truth in knowing Puritan bias, character. Morton comes across as a common man that even we today could relate to. He likes to have a good time. He is also extremely tolerant. Although he refers to Native Americans as savages he shows that he thinks that there is some merit to the Native American way of life, and unlike the Puritans, he sees the Native Americans more as equals. He does not sell them weapons in order to disrupt society, he simply believes that the Native Americans are a good group of people to trade with and can see that trade with them would be prosperous for England. Puritan bias make Morton out to be a despicable being but in knowing that bias and seeing his accounts of himself we can see that Morton was just a regular guy that we can sympathize with. It is a reminder that while the Puritans were a major part of the population there were still other settlers making up the new world and this is an interesting look at how the Puritans view those others.

Bradford, a covenant, and the humor of Morton

I decided to read the text of Bradford first, as Morton seemed to be more of a rebuttal piece. Bradford obviously followed the Puritan tradition of giving all thanks to God, and tried to relate all of the tales in regard to the signs of God and the relationship the colony has with God. Throughout the piece the reader is presented with a typology, the settlers as the Isrealites of the New World. They have to face hardships from all sides, and are constantly being tested. Despite being ridiculed and not helped at all by the sailors, they are good Christians and help the sick sailors in times of need. Despite the terrible conditions they face they manage to persevere and make the land fertile and sustainable. They are at the very center of the Devil's wickedness and temptation, Bradford says, yet they stay steadfast in their beliefs and maintain their side of the covenant with God.

Morton paints the Puritans in a far different light. His piece is definitely a response to what he sees as hypocrisy in the group. He does this first by touting the goodness of the Natives, showing that they have similar religious convictions as the English, and that they are not only industrious, but even seem to make Plato's idea of a communal society work well. They live in harmony, and the only interaction he gives is the massacre of many Indians at the hands of the Puritans. This certainly paints the Puritans in an unfavorable light, and as it has nothing to do with him, he presents himself as simply a reporter of fact. This, of course, is used to his advantage when he relates the relationship he had with the Puritans. If the reader already sees the Puritans as a savage and hypocritical group, they are more likely to side with him in an argument. Morton, however, doesn't seem to be the trustworthy narrator. His writings seem to be more impassioned, and more like a boy throwing a temper tantrum complaining of all the wrongs that have befallen him, a good man who is living and having some fun on the side. When comparing the two works, it would seem the truth likely falls somewhere in the middle, but the writing of Bradford is more compelling and more likely true. Bradford shows himself, and all Puritans as having flaws, making them more believable, unlike Morton who believes himself to be always right.

Bradford Of Plymouth Plantation

Bradford always refers to the Bible when he wants to make a point. This clearly shows his dedication, knowledge, and trust in the Word. "Let them therefore praise the Lord, because He is good: and His mercies endure forever.” He’s very merciful unto His people. But Bradford also show the disciplinary side of God when his children go against his word. “Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, shew how He hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor." This reminded me of a sermon the Pastor preached about being a living witness for God. He testified on how there were so many times he could have been dead, but by the grace and mercy of Christ, his life was spared. And no he tells this testimony wherever he goes, having faith that it will help someone along the way. The Pastor mentioned when the Holy Ghost moves upon our heart to testify we don't know who it is for. It could be someone struggling with salvation, and by giving a testimony allow that person to trust Christ. It could be a brother or sister in Christ that is going through something that you have gone through.

Bradford

It is very obvious through out Bradford's writings how large of an influence God is. This has been a main topic this semester in realizing how much God and religion influenced the Puritan way of life, but these writings establish the fear of God and how negative things are consequences of the Puritan actions.
The first example comes when Bradford tells of the man on the Mayflower. He says that a man was plotting to through all of these people who had become sea sick over board because he could not stand them anymore. However, before he could get a chance to do this he came down with a horrible illness and died. Bradford tells this as a way of showing how sinful people get punished by God.
Another example is the earthquake that Bradford explains. He says, "the Lord would hereby show the signs of His displeasure, in their shaking a-pieces and removals one form another." This is stating that the Lord was displeased with the Puritans so he caused and earthquake. I found this to be very interesting because I didn't know that the New England area could even get earthquakes.
Lastly the explains a lot of this in chapter XXXII. He explains how wickedness grew in the colony and as a consequence bad things happened. One example is that the steams started to to stop and damn up. I wonder now if it was just becoming a dry season or if this was a rarity for the time of year.
No matter what the cause for this natural disasters the Puritans "knew" it was God. This helped govern the colonies and caused people to have not only love for God but also fear so they would act in a way that the Lord would accept.

The Native American's Creation

It struck me as something of interest that the Native Americans seemed to have a similar creation/destruction tale as the pilgrims. Their idea that God had made one man and one woman is very similar to the christian belief. Other instances of similarities are that the men and women did not live up to God's standards, and as a result God punished them with a flood. This to me was the most interesting. It reminds me of the bible story of Noah's Ark. This made me wonder where the Native Americans might have come up with this. The story seems entirely too familiar for them to have simply made it up. I wondered if their stories were the aftermath of previous encounters with settlers and explorers. The pilgrims were not the first Europeans to touch down in "The New World." Were the Native Americans previously encountered by religious people? The fact that the Native Americans had the story a little washed down makes me think, it may have been several generations past since their "religious intervention." The only other explanation is that perhaps the Mormons were right. The Mormons believe that Jesus Christ visited America, and that the Native Americans are those who killed the original tribes of Israel that settled here. My guess is that previous interventions caused their current belief system.

Morton and Bradford

I found it interesting that Morton continually refers to Greek and Roman myths and gods when talking about the Puritans. For example, he writes that they "fell to tippeling as if they had obtained a great prize; like the Trojans when they had custody of Hippeus pinetree horse" (329).
Bradford on the other hand constantly refers to the bible when talking about events that took place. For example, he writes, "It is recorded in Scripture as a mercy to the Apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them" (352).
The effect that this has, for Morton's writing, is a sort of subversive typology. Morton seems to understand that writers like Bradford would want to compare Puritan struggles to previous chosen people of God. By comparing their trials to non-Christian gods, and unchosen people, he is attempting to undermine the effect that typology, such as Bradford's, might have.
Morton even goes as far as to compare the judges who deport him to judges of the underworld in Greek mythology. It might not seem like such a big deal in reading these comparisons today, but when put in the context of how important and prevalent typology was, especially after reading Bradford, it is easier to understand what Morton was trying to accomplish by using comparisons to non-Christian gods and people when describing the Puritans.

I felt that William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation was written as an account of how noble the Puritan people were. A strong Christian bias is formed throughout Of Plymouth Plantation. The first bias I noticed occurred as Bradford tells about the trip to Cape Cod. He describes a “proud and very profane young man” (352) who frowned upon all the passengers on the boat who were sick. What is far worse is that the young man wishes those ridden with disease would die so that he could get their possessions. Bradford charges this young man with being greedy, irreverent of God, and self-important. Bradford concludes that because of these qualities God gives the young man a terminal disease. Bradford implies that if the young man were humble and realized the awesome power of God, mainly possessing the qualities of a good Christian, he would not have died in such a fashion. Bradford also comments on the nature of sailors. As one sailor has fallen ill he says, “I now see, you show your love like Christians indeed to one another, but we let one another lie and die like dogs” (356). Bradford states that the sailor realizes he does not deserve any help. I believe the text to imply that even if a man or woman does not deserve help, they should get it anyway. Bradford shows that God wants people to help one another instead of having an indifferent attitude towards those that are weak.