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.