Apess

I think you can see Apess’ intelligence and rhetorical ability early on in this piece. While describing what is thought of as uncivilized warfare he says it “is an agreement according to the pure laws of nature, growing out of natural consequences.” This is brilliant because Apess appears to be playing with the Puritan belief that nature was a sacred text, and the word of God could be seen through nature. I think the suggestion here is that the pure laws of nature would have been God’s laws, and that the natives were obeying these laws well before missionaries tried to teach them otherwise.
Apess shows his intelligence and understanding of Puritanism later on in the piece as well. While talking about a chief who turned the other cheek and forgave the Pilgrims for certain transgressions, Apess writes, “It might well be said he was a pattern for Christians themselves.” In other words, this chief shows Christian values and could be looked at the same way Cotton Mather looked at people such as William Bradford, using typology.
Apess plays with the nature theme in other parts of the sermon as well. He says, “How inhuman it was in those wretches, to come into a country where nature shone in beauty, spreading her wings over the vast continent, sheltering beneath her shades those natural sons of an Almighty Being, that shone in grandeur and luster like the stars of the first magnitude in the heavenly world; whose virtues far surpassed their more enlightened foes, notwithstanding their pretended zeal for religion and virtue.” First of all, this sentence parallels Ann Bradstreet’s poem about the beauty of the sun. In this sentence, Apess seems to be suggesting a similar image, that the natural beauty of this country was awe inspiring, and that it would stand to reason that the real Heavenly Kingdom would be even better. At the same time, he is also saying that this was only the case before the Pilgrims, who he labels as pretenders, came over. The sentence also starts with Apess calling the Pilgrims inhuman, a characterization that is suggested by the word the Pilgrims used for Native-Americans, “savage.”
Apess continues a theme of humanity later on in the sermon. At one point he ponders what the natives should do in order to get some sort of revenge. He comes to the conclusion, “we sincerely hope there is more humanity in us than that.” Again he is characterizing the Pilgrims as being less than human, and using a widely held belief about the natives against the Pilgrims.

Refutation of, and contradictions in Occom's Sermon

I will attempt to refute some of Occom's points and preachings, and it will sound nit-picky and dwelling on technicalities but what better way to argue something than use the speaker's own words against them. I have found, when reading Occom's sermon, several contradictions and possibilities for refutation. First, Occom contrasts man and beast for devouring their own kind. Next, Occom presents this idea that life and death are connected and as are sin and death. And lastly, there is this bit about the tongue being an interpreter of the heart and the heart being the place of all sin.

Occum says that the sinner has “...become ill-natured, cruel and murderous; he is contentious and quarrelsome. I said he is worse than the ravenous beasts, for wolves and bears don't devour their own kind, but man does; yea, we have numberless instances of women killing their own children; such women I think are worse than she-tygers.” (p. 10). I refute this point first because it is so obviously wrong. Many different animals may for “packs” such as humans do and will not kill from their own “pack” but they still kill their own kind. “This is not an animal unnatural characteristics: around 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions. Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.” (1). Of course Occom didn't have access to this type of information, but you're telling me he has never seen a wolf killed by another wolf? Apparently, he needs to brush up on his Darwin and his “survival of the fittest.” And for the women killing their children, there are countless numbers of animal species where the mother eats their young. Occom must know this.

The next thing I noticed is an in-text contradiction and it's a little more of a stretch. Occom says that “Life and death are nearly connected; we generally own that it is a great and solemn thing to die. If this be true, then it is a great and solemn thing to live, for as we live so we shall die.” (pg. 8). I can agree with this. But it's where he says “If it had not been for sin, there never would have been such a thing as hell or devil, death or misery.” (pg. 9) where a problem arises. Now, if life and death are connected and there is no life without sin and there is no death without sin, then how do those who don't sin not live an immortal life? If one were to live a purely clean life, devoted to God, without ever sinning then how is it that he should die? And, if you are forgiven all your sins in Confession, how is it that you die cleanly and sin-free. How is it that Christ died without ever sinning? Sure, he was risen and didn't stay dead but he did die at one point and according to Occom this can't be possible.

“It is the heart that is in the first place full of deadly poison. The tongue is only an interpreter of the heart.” (pg. 10). So the heart is the place where sin lives and the tongue is what interprets said sin. Based on scripture, I can believe that the heart is where sin lives as every man is born inherently evil and sinful. But I think it is the mind that is what interprets the sin, the brain is where sin grows and is interpreted, and through the tongue and through action is the way the sin is released. It seems that even Occom himself should believe this because he goes on to say “Sin hath stupified mankind, they are now ignorant of God their Maker; neither do they enquire after him. And they are ignorant of themselves, they know not what is good them.” (pg. 10). If life and death are contrasting and connecting then as are ignorance and knowledge. So there is no ignorance without thought (or lack there of), which comes from the brain. So how is it that sin lives in the heart when Occom states that sin can come from ignorance and that it has stupified mankind, both of which are attributes of the mind. Maybe it's just a simple matter of word choice but before delivering a very important sermon and preaching on something as mighty and holy as the word of Christ, Occom should correct these inconstancies and seek to make refutation impossible.

1. http://www.whereincity.com/india-kids/animals/

Samson Occom

The reading on Occom was very interesting for me to read.   He raises a viewpoint that is different from those conveyed in previous readings.  Occom relies on religion and preaching to get his message across. The sermon he delivered on the day of Moses Paul’s execution shows his intelligence.  I feel as if Occom spent his life as a middle man between the non-Christian Indians and the white Christian settlers.  He claims he was “raised in heathenism,” (pp. 1), so he studied with Wheelock and then converted to Christianity, only to get short-changed later by Wheelock, whom Occom was completely reliant upon. 

The structure of Occom’s sermon was clever and no doubt intentional.  Knowing that his audience would be comprised of whites and Indians, and that they would be gathering at the execution of an Indian man, he would have needed to compose his sermon so that neither group would be outraged at his statements; again, playing the role of the mediator.  The head-note states that the sermon was immensely popular and reprinted many times and suggests that the popularity of it was mainly because people wanted to hear Occom speak out against his own people.  This, to me, reflects a twisted sense of curiosity that people have- to want to attend the sermon only to see how the orator criticizes “his” people, as if it had the potential of being entertaining.  Occom utilizes his sermon to reach out to his mixed audience, and addresses the groups in specific portions in his sermon.  I was critical of this piece, only because it has been reprinted so many times so parts could have been tweaked a bit in the process.  Occom in his own introduction states that it may have been “altered and enlarged in some places,” (pp. 7) making me wonder what parts have been changed.  Regardless of the embellishments, I think it worthy of Occom to have given this sermon in an attempt to create a common ground for people of different races.

The majority of the sermon is dedicated to the discussion of sin.  It is appropriate that he uses alcoholism as his example of sin throughout the sermon, for it is the reason that Moses Paul committed his crime in the first place and it is one thing that Christians, especially Puritans, would have also viewed as being a problem.  “When a person is drunk, he is just good for nothing in the world; he is of no service to himself, to his family, to his neighbours, or his country; and how much more unfit is he to serve God,” (pp. 20) and “Drunkenness is so common amongst us, that even our young men (and what is still more shocking) young women are not ashamed to get drunk,” (pp. 20).  These statements are given in the portion of the sermon directed to his fellow Indians, yet the Christian members in the audience would have agreed with him.  I think that it is important to recognize that Occom does not claim that one race is more likely to sin than another.  “Sin hath stupefied mankind,” (pp. 10) and “thus every unconverted soul is a child of the devil, sin has made them so,” (pp. 11).  By claiming that sin is universal to mankind he recognizes that regardless of race, all people are tempted with sin and that the real enemy is sin and not people of different colors.  Humans should join together and fight evil, instead of fighting each other.  This idea of humanity versus evil seems to be one that society has battled with and is still struggling with today- issues stemming from misconceptions of racial and religious superiority.

William Apess

William Apess is one of the most passionate writers I’ve ever encountered. In fact, his words are so full of passion that they turn into hostility. He felt that the pilgrims wronged his people so greatly, which they obviously did, that he was consumed with feelings of revenge and hatred. I completely agree with Apess’ claims that the Pilgrims were hypocritical. That they would preach forgiveness and mercy but then attack the Indians in such a way. I think a lot of it comes back to the Pilgrims having a sense of entitlement. They felt they were better than the people in England, and then they thought they were better than the Indians; more deserving of the land. They most likely didn’t even consider the Indians to be human. I wonder what sort of audience this eulogy was prepared for. Was he speaking for a large group of people who were sympathetic to Indians? Or was he talking to a diverse group, with the potential of their being some who would find this account of white pilgrims offensive? With the way Apess was writing, a step by step look at massacres and exploitation, I feel that he was trying to convince and change minds.
I looked up the biography of William Apess online and it said that he was a terrible alcoholic which is the disease that eventually killed him. I was surprised by this because he seemed to be an honorable and intelligent man with high morals. (Not that people with alcoholism cant be honorable, intelligent, and moral)I feel like Apess must have been so overwhelmed with grief and frustration at the wrongs committed against the Indians that he couldn’t look beyond the misfortune and live his own life. The last paragraph of the eulogy reads “And you and I have to rejoice that we have not to answer for our fathers’ crimes; neither shall we do right to charge them one to another. We can only regret it, and flee from it; and from henceforth, let peace and righteousness be written upon our hearts and hands forever” (310). Now I believe Apess is saying here that his generation isn’t responsible for what their parents did but that we need to learn from those mistakes. He seems to be saying that we shouldn’t be attacking one another for the past but we also shouldn’t be perpetuating the past. This statement confuses me and doesn’t seem to go with what he has been saying throughout the paper. Apess seems to be very much entangled in the exploitation and destruction of the Indian population. His words come off obsessive and not at all like he is trying to move on from what happened. I felt that he wanted retribution. That he wanted white people to realize how awful they had been and he does so in a very accusatory manner. Regardless of how this eulogy comes off, i'm having a hard time leaving this post without saying that if i was a member of an ethnic group that had been treated like the indians, i probably would have been full of hatred and confusion as well.

Puritan Influence

Reading the Apess piece on King Philip was very eye opening. I think Apess made many accusations that the Puritans would have obviously disagreed with, but it was also the Americans who would have probably disagreed as well. Apess gives a few examples of people who were less than sympathetic to Indians of his own time, examples that were written a bit tongue in cheek, but also meant to show that all was not forgotten or forgiven. I think what was most telling about his work was the way the Puritans treated the Indians when they were captured, particularly the awful passage about the quartering and displaying of King Philip. This is something I certainly would not have expected from them, even considering the mindset they had. That kind of action would have been something they would have reserved as an admonition of the Indians. While I am surprised, I did have to read this piece with a critical eye, just as I have every piece. I do think Apess has a slight slant to his writing, particularly when writing about King Philip toward the end of the war and some of his actions. I do, however, sympathize with him. I think he was more than generous toward the Puritans, and he did more than the Puritans would have done in regard the "turn the other cheek" adage. I feel he was justified to be upset and angry, especially considering all that he and his people had to go through. I also feel the actions that he claims are substantiated, especially when you think of the treatment the Quakers recieved from the Puritans, noted in their own history.

The Puritan influence did not last with just them, however, and carried on throughout American history. The intolerance of other cultures, and the inherent superiority that was given to the white men by the white men exists in ways to this day. It was even more apparent during the time of the readings for today. The Indians were treated as second class citizens, and were even captured by some to be sold into slavery in Europe. The later arrival of Africans to America as slaves seems to be something that is seen as "okay", since the precedent of enslaving an "inferior" or non-Christian race is okay in the eyes of the Puritans. It is the strong Puritan influence that really set the tone for a caste system based on race to be accepted in early America. When looking at the Wheatley and Occom letters, it is obvious that both understand the ways in which Christianity can be hypocritical, much in the same way that Apess calls out the Puritans. Both Wheatley and Occom speak to their own time, and sympathize with the plight each has to face, as well as the plight of Indians and Africans, and African-Americans at the time. Each realize that they are part of a lower class in America, yet each are among the most brilliant of their time. This is something that is lost on the whites of America. This is a part of the lasting Puritan legacy, a legacy that if not promotes, at leasts willingly accepts hegemony.

Eulogy on King Philip

I would like to begin by saying that I found it refreshing reading a text where the speaker sides with the Native Americans, and I think that’s what gave me a deal of trouble as I read “The Eulogy on King Philip”. As I read this, I had the captivity narrative of Mary Rowlandson in the back of my mind. In the narrative she describes her captors as savages who wear necklaces of human fingers and as cannibals. From what I gather from the text, it seemed as if she wasn’t eating enough. I know I wouldn’t readily eat a piece of horse meat after a child had been slobbering on it. In the eulogy the text says that, “It appears that Philip treated his prisoners with a great deal more Christian-like spirit than the Pilgrims did” (300) and then the texts claims that his prisoners weren’t treated as poorly as Rowlandson writes, the prisoners were almost viewed as guests. The text then goes to say that he paid for whatever work she did and she also dined with him on occasion. The eulogy claims that the Native Americans not only treated their prisoners better; but eventually released them, whereas, the Pilgrims just killed their captives.

Another issue that bothered me as I read was that both groups, the Puritans and Native Americans, believe that they’ve been wronged. Rowlandson’s account portrays the Indians flying out of left field, burning down houses and tearing Puritans, completely unprovoked. In sharp contrast, the eulogy talks about an incident when some soldiers arrive in Ohio and slaughter ninety peaceful Native Americans, also completely unprovoked. Both sides claim that they are the victim of atrocities committed by the opposing side. In the accounts of the eulogy and the captivity narrative we see two wildly different biases, one bias where the Puritans are in the wrong and another where the Native Americans are.

I wasn’t sure how I should have read this. I read it with the same critical eye as I read Mary Rowlandson, as I read i wondered how much of this work is embellished and how much is it true? For me, the work raises some questions such as: Is this just one piece of a constant back and forth between Puritans and the Native Americans? Are both sides right in saying they were mistreated? If that is the case, are both groups at fault, or is just one? I’m interested to see what other people think.

Clearly Superstitious

I think in the case of the firm belief in witchcraft and the afflictions of witchcraft on people are an example of superstition and seeing what you want to see. In reading the detailed accounts from Mather of people who have been supposedly been afflicted it is hard to think that there is a logical explanation to the fits of the children that doesn’t involve some sort of magic. However when I thought upon it I started to think that often times if people believe in something enough they will see what they want to see and nothing else. I’m sure that to Mather who firmly believed that there was such a thing as witchcraft it looked as if the girl was indeed being dragged by a chain toward the fireplace and because he really wanted to see signs of witchcraft he wouldn’t see that in actuality the girl was inching herself toward the fireplace. It may beg the question to ask why the children were doing this. It certainly didn’t seem, as in the case with Lawson’s narrative about Salem, that they were doing it to condemn anyone. However it seems that it is not such a crazy thing to happen. It seems likely that in such a repressive environment as a Puritan life that it would cause children to act out. Also since they are all children in the same family, in the same environment, it is likely that they would act out in a similar manner. Also the fact that it said that I believe two of the children were spared from affliction that perhaps those children were not affected by the repressive environment in the same way. It seems odd that someone would just bewitch some of the children and not all. However such psychological thoughts about the acting outs of children were not in Puritan life. Their only explanation for it was witchcraft and I think that they would see them as signs of witchcraft and due to their strong belief in it would mentally block out things that would hint that the children were playacting.
I think that the events at Salem contrast with this in that there were people who played upon people’s superstitions and beliefs. As I was reading it was hard not to laugh at the complete stupidity to not realize that what the so called “afflicted” were doing was carefully orchestrated. The fact that they would have fits in a certain part of their body when the accused moved that body par was just ridiculous. It was very convenient that as soon as the accused were put in jail that the afflictions stopped. One would think such powerful witchcraft couldn’t be hampered by containment. Also the fact that they had visions telling them when the next time they had a fit would be and then magically having a fit at that time (who would have thought) is a trick that could only work on a superstitious audience. It is just sadly laughable how these “afflicted” got away with this.

Problems for Salem.

So when I first began to read Mather's book "Memorable Providence" was introduced and it stated that the book was to explain "A Faithful Account of Wonderful and Surprising Things." Now because this is written by Mather I assume he wrote that statement as well. I was in shock when reading it because it seems that Mather was almost excited by the whole situation. For a Reverend of the Puritans the word "Wonderful" seems like it would not be the first choice when describing the witch trials.


Now I understand that it is in traditional Puritan nature to think the world is out to get you but this whole witch thing seems like a bit much. And Mather seems to be making it worst. He says "Go tell mankind, that there are Devils and Witches." He wants to scare the crap out of everyone by telling them to be afraid of devils and witches as if to say that they are walking around town next to them. He is telling them that besides the fact that they need to pay attention to everything they do and say as it is but now they have to fear for their lives? I get the feeling that Mather wants to be the one the people go to and if they do not fear anything they have no need for him anymore.


When he describes the beginning the first person he introduces is John Goodman and his children as the afflicted. Mather even states right from the beginning that Goodman is "a sober and pious man." Goodman himself seems to never be effected by the witches. I just have to ask myself if they felt that the Devil was after the most pure of people then why was Goodman never effected? Obviously because his children were the ones "in charge" of the whole accusing.

Mather never questions the children but rather believes everything they tell him. In those days children never spoke unless spoken to first and they were often considered incompetent from my understanding, so why now are they taken seriously? First of all I think the children did what they did simply for the attention they received. They were treated with respect and looked to for advise which was a very uncommon thing back then. Secondly I think Mather believed them because he wanted something drastic to happen that would bring the people back to the church. The whole situation benefited both parties.

Mather's Scare Tactics

I want to start by apologizing if this post sounds like nothing more than a long rant. I had a hard time reading this work because my brain immediately went to conspiracy theory. I want to give the puritans the benefit of the doubt and say that there could have been witches and bewitchments but I can’t. I know that I can never know what happened and that my witch trial information is limited but this could have been an elaborate plan to scare people into remaining in the rigid puritan lifestyle. Mather wrote this piece as if everything was fact even though he acknowledges that he did not see all of it. On several occasions, he refers to an anonymous “credible witness”, which he feels is proof enough. Mather is so detailed yet at times he says things like “I can’t recall”, “I don’t remember”, or he cannot remember the day at which events happened.
The fact that this history was not written like a diary, a daily account, makes me wonder about what was going on. The puritans always wrote things down in detail, like the Anne Hutchinson trial for example. I think that Mather, being so influential, could have orchestrated this. Also Mather did talk about the Goodwin’s being a very religious family. I know this is all speculative but with all the younger people, the halfway church members we were talking about, I could see why they would want to use scare tactics. Mather goes into such depth about all of the awful things that happened to these children and the only thing that saves them is prayer. This is like when parents tell their kids that if they sit too close to the TV they will go blind, only in this case imaginary horses are involved.
When John Goodwin wrote his account of what went down, he inserted numerous biblical references and placed prayer and God as the only things that could help his children. Readers of these stories are supposed to take away that the devil is always lurking and that devotion to god will save you from him. Also, in regard to the suspected witches themselves, most of the women were thought of as strange for a long time. Mather, by drawing out the bewitchments for long after the “witches” died, he implies that suspected witches should be taken care of immediately, before they can do any harm.
In the final part of this selection, Deodat Lawson gives his account of what happened in Salem. On the second page (in-text 148), there is a footnote which describes Mather’s influences. The footnote contains a quote which reads “I cannot resist the impression upon reading it, that it was promoted by Cotton Mather and that he wrote the ‘Bookseller’s’ notice ‘to the Reader’.” Lawson was a key player in the Salem Witch Trials and I think that it is suspicious that Mather influenced him.

Witchcraft Among the Puritans

I'm reading a book titled The Witch of Blackbird Pond to help me with my research paper. In the book a young girl from Barbados is sent to live with her family in colonial Connecticut. While there her entire world is flipped upside down. She has to work, there is no smiling or fun allowed. The young girl, named Kit, gets into trouble for "acting" out a part of the Bible to a group of students she is teaching. Later in the story she meets a woman who the town believes to be a witch. This woman is differnet from the townspeople. People avoid her and speak ill of her, and they refuse to have their children go near her. Kit of course has befriended the "witch", they are two people in the town that do not belong.

As many of you have probably heard me say in class to me the Puritans are full of contradictions. They preach from the bible and yet they do not do nice things to people who are different from them. Maybe this is the future teacher in me, but to me this seems wrong. I understand that the puritans wanted to convert people to Christianity but to me the Puritans are very selfish. They aren't accepting of the differences, and the minute they do one thing out of line they think God is out to get them. Maybe I'm wrong but killing 19 people based on the idea of witchcraft doesn't seem to me to get them through the pearly gates. I understand that to them they were ridding the world of satan and evil, I get that, but at the same time murder is a sin.

A line in The Witch of Blackbird Pond states, "people are afraid of things they don't understand". The puritans didn't understand the other people living during that time. They never took the time to understand them, to them their way was the correct way of life. They were afraid, which is understandable, but at the same time I feel as if the puritans tell one group of people not to do a sinful deed whereas they can.

"More Prayin'

First, I want to apologize for getting this up late. It has been a hectic week for me, and I wasn’t able to get the .pdf printed, which slowed me down further… but anyway here goes…

As I read the lines written by Cotton Mather, I am struck by the ferocity and confidence in which he preaches for what he believes. The lines exhibited in this reading no doubt had to be read before the screenplay for “The Exorcist” or any other movie about exorcism was produced. The way the damned children were described was nothing short of all the horrific images that one saw in the movies (and for the most part people figure is clearly fake). But what is the solution to this “illness”; this “damnation: That cure is prayer. To quote Chris Rock:
""That's all we had when l was a kid: Robitussin. No matter what you got, Robitussin better handle it. –“Daddy, I got asthma.” –“Robitussin.” –“I got cancer.” –“Robitussin.” I broke my leg, Daddy poured Robitussin on it. “Yeah, boy, let that 'tussin get in there.” “Yeah, boy, let that 'tussin get on down to the bone. The 'tussin ought to straighten out the bone. It's good.” If you run out of 'tussin, put some water in the jar, shake it up, more 'tussin. “More 'tussin!” ""

Now I’m not implying that the puritans had Robitussin… but they did have prayer. Their entire medical and psychological field of study was based on the Bible and prayer. On .pdf document page 14 or in-text 102, Mather writes:
""Many superstitious proposals were made unto them, by persons that were I know not who, nor what, with Arguments fetch’t from I know not how much Necessity and Experience; but the distressed parents rejected all counsils, with a gracious Resolution, to oppose devils with no other weapons but Prayers and Tears,""

Now I do not claim to know a ton about the puritans beliefs on medicine, but it seems as though they are indeed waiting for God to heal their children if not medically then spiritually. It is this extreme faith that helps the puritans cope with these strange behaviors. It is also this faith that leads to the literal “witch-hunt” that surrounded Salem. Remember in this day and age there was no such thing as therapists or psychiatrists… only pastors. And there was only one cure… “Prayin’” and if you ran out of Prayin’… add some wine to it, shake it up, more prayin’. “More prayin!”

Mary Rowland's life with the Indians

The preface in this excerpt from Mary Rowland was really saddening because we see how the Indians came to attack many English men and they raided certain houses. Mary Rowland was one of the many women who had her house raided by Indians and the killings that were performed by the Indians were described as being extremely gruesome. For example, one of the descriptions was, "...but they would not hearken to him but knockt him in head, and stript him naked, and split open his Bowels." (pg. 467) Not only this but Mary Rowland's home was also set on fire, and many people who lived in her home were gruesomely harmed, and caught off guard with no way for them to defend themselves. As she goes through her different "removes" and tells the tales of her journey with the Indians as a captive and slave, we see her try to obtain pity from the reader, and then instantly she changes her tune to feelings of optimism and uplifted spirits because she finds God in herself who gives her the strenghth to carry on from day to day in her miserable life with the Indians. We see this portrayed on pg. 470 when Rowland writes, "God was with me, in a wonderfull manner, carrying me along, and bearing up my spirit, that it did not quite fail." This clearly demonstrates how Rowland depended on God during her journey to get her through whatever she was going to endure. I thought it was interesting how the Indians were treating many of these English people so horribly but yet they too believed in God and had a Bible with them. It boggles my mind how people who follow the holy word of God could kill be such horrible people by killing others in cold blood. It also intrigued me how Mary Rowland was treated so horribly, yet she confided in the scriptures of the Bible to give her strength to keep her motivated to survive. Towards the end of the excerpt we see how Rowland felt that it was her destiny from God to be put through that horrible journey with the savage Indians and she claims that if God is willing to put a person through something like that, then he is more than willing to save them and keep them safe during their journey. She also feels that because she was rich and had everything that she could desire in her life, God took all of that away from her and left her almost near death in order for her to understand what it was like to have nothing. I thought this excerpt was extremely detailed and Rowland really did a good job on making the reader feel like you are actually with her on this journey and witnessing all of these sickening actions taking place.

Wigglesworth's tug of war

Since my classmates have already given you two great entries on Jonathan Edwards, I’ll talk about Michael Wigglesworth (does anyone else really enjoy saying his last name?).

In “The Diary of Michael Wigglesworth,” the author gives us a glimpse into his own form of the spiritual autobiography. The entries that this anthology gives the reader shows Wigglesworth’s internal back-and-forth struggle to please God. He struggles with pride, lust, and pride again as he pours out all of his fears about the eternal fate of his soul. One of the most interesting entries occurs on August 15, 1654, when Wigglesworth remarks that, “A mind distracted with a thousand vanitys Sabbath dayes and week days when I should be musing on the things of god,” (441). This sentence sums up the diary as a whole; in times of contemplation, Wigglesworth defines “time wasted” as “time not spent honoring God.” But Wigglesworth takes it one step further, and mentions that, in these times of waste, his lust/pride is so great that he can think of nothing else, he is “unable to read any thing to inform [him] about [his] distemper because of the prevailing or rising” of these sins. This entry is followed by one that shows a man much more at peace with his God, however (Spetember 15: “God will guide and provide.”). Again, I think this is done by the compilers of the anthology to show how extreme Wigglesworth’s back-and-forth struggle with finding peace in the eyes of God was. He fears these sinful desires because, as he mentions in “A Song of Emptiness,” man’s “gettings do augment his greediness,” (445). Indulging his desires will only lead to greater cravings - this is what every mortal man should fear.

Like many of the spiritual autobiographies we’ve read, Wigglesworth has his own personal struggle, but it seems like when he takes a step back and contemplates the fate of his soul, he accepts that the decision is completely out of his hands, and he leaves it up to God to make the choice whether it is good or bad. That’s not going to stop his “distracted mind” from fretting over his “carnal lusts,” but at certain times he takes comfort in the fact that some things are out of his hands. “A Song of Emptiness” has the perfect moral ending/warning for a soul that is tempted by worldly desires; “Thy best enjoyments are but Trash and Toyes: / Delight thy self in that which worthless is. / All things pass by except the love of God,” (447).

sinners in the hands of an angry God

Most Christians probably haven’t heard a sermon like this one. Some congregations are probably pampered by the “God love you no matter what” sermons. The title alone “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” shows that God has had enough. This revival sermon was meant for the Puritans. It was meant for the restoration of the church itself to build a strong and prosperous relationship with God after a period of decline.

Johnathan Edwards definitely showed no fear in offending his listeners because he had no doubt in what he was saying. The Bible says that the truth cuts like a sword. “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrew 4:11-12) It’s hard for many of us to hear the truth. I believe there were a lot of people sitting in that congregation with hardened hearts; they were probably offended to hear the truth.

His message is straight forward and his tone is easily identified. He preaches that we are all born in sin and need repentance and if you don’t turn away from sin, you will be cast into hell and live in eternal damnation. Edwards show no mercy for these people, he makes it clear that his misson is to put fear into the saints, and make them see that God is no joke. “There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it." (691) This indicates how powerful God is and why we should fear him.

Edwards ends the sermon with, "Therefore let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come." He indirectly gives a sense of hope to those currently out of Christ. I think he believed his imagery and message of his sermon would awaken the congregation. For instance, “uncovered men walk over the pit of hell on rotten covering, and there are innumerable plaves in the covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen.” (693) This indicated that we shouldn’t take Christ lightly, because we are “playing with fire”. We will never know the day that Christ will come back for us, so it’s best if we are prepared now. Edwards underlying point, is that God has given people a chance to be delivered from their sins.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

When I was reading Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, I honestly thought I was misunderstanding the sermon . The sermon is over the top, and I’ll admit I found it pretty funny at the end when he said most people at the church were going to hell. The way that Jonathan Edwards portrays God made me think of William Bradford’s portrayal of God in Of Plymouth Plantation. Bradford portrays God as vengeful and terrifying, and I’m thinking about the young man on the boat that was headed to Cape Cod. The young man was full of pride, greedy and did not want to help those that were sick, so God gave him a terminal disease. Bradford makes it seem that the young man’s undoing is his own fault; he didn’t respect God’s wishes and that is the reason that God smote him. I remember reading that the first time and thinking that was pretty outrageous. In comparison to Edwards, Bradford portrays God as vengeful but fair. In classical myth, the Gods are sadistic teenagers that inflict suffering on humans just because they can, and I do not think that that is too different from what Edwards conveys. While Bradford’s God is vengeful and just, Edwards’ God is just vengeful. The passage that reminded me of this the most was, “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked” (696). While the passage alone does not illustrate God as unjust I think if we couple the passage with the belief of unconditional election. People are either born saved or damned and God is the one that picks. Essentially, God handpicks who he is going to throw into hell. I wasn’t raised with a religious background so I could be completely off; and if I am please tell me. I think that today if a person finds God or prays for forgiveness, that God will extend mercy to the individual. I believe that in modern religion God loves everyone and is always willing to forgive. This is radically different from what Edwards preaches. I believe when Edwards says, “God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go” (691) he is saying that God will not tolerate any sin and believes in a "one strike and you're out" penalty system. Whether this was Edwards’ intention or not, he portrays God as deserting sinners.
Overall, I had a hard time believing what I was reading because what Edwards wrote was that outrageous. To sum up the sermon, he talks about hell not as a means of scaring people into behaving, but rather to prepare the majority of population, because most people will be going there.

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.

Ma-re Mount

The Natives lived very differently compared to the separatists. Natives were considered uncivilized but maintained a form of life that the civilized took of interest. The Natives never became materialistic no matter how plentiful their woods and waters were, as did the separatists. The Natives dressed themselves, hiding their private parts, as would a civilized society, they even believed in a God known as Kytan, where after the good died would live without the worldy paines.

The Salvages became sinful and killed many Natives by deceiving the Natives with a feast at Wessaguscus. The Natives seemed much friendlier than the Separatists.

At Ma-re Mount, the Natives invited all to join and be apart of their inhabitate, but Separatists envied the value of their settlement. Ma-re-Mount became a great place for trade. The Seperatists made up a story against the leader to send him back to England, which they failed to do because of him first escaping, and then them not providing transportation to England left him stranded on an island. On this island he was helped by other Natives.

Morton's writings shows how unhumanly the New comers were. They killed the Natives in Wessaguscus and then attacked the host of Ma-re Mount because of envy. This reading showed how bad the Christains were compared to the Natives who even help other tribes as seen when the Host was helped by saveges on an island.

Us vs Them

One thing I noticed while reading Morton’s "New England Canaan" and Bradford’s "Of Plymouth Plantation" is the need for both men to have clear antagonists. The groups they are speaking for are the protagonists; for Morton the Native American’s are the ones we feel sympathy towards, for Bradford, the Pilgrims are the ones struggling. In both narrations these groups butt heads and both authors want us to see their respective groups as being the “good guys,” or at least the one's "in the right." Their conflicts are with each other, but they also conflict with other groups: Bradford also displays the sailors as an antagonistic bunch. They are drunkards, not even sparing a bottle of beer for a sick man (though I don’t see why a sick man feels the need to get a buzz on) and they constantly bully the Pilgrims. This is something Bradford continually does throughout his historical narrative: makes it seem as if every group is against the Pilgrims.

One of the events that both men mention is the events at Merry-mount, or Ma-re Mount. Here both men try to paint themselves as the protagonist; they are both “in the right”. Morton describes the “Seperatists” as a deceitful, greedy, threatening group bent on conquering the plantation, while Bradford criticizes Morton’s pigheadedness and shows that Morton was the one who forced him into storming the plantation. Though both men claim they are the noble ones, both men are diluting themselves. It’s clear that Bradford wants to control trade with the Indians, but he’s not going to admit it (as and aside, did anyone else notice how Bradford keeps telling these long-winded stories, then at the end of them mentions something about wasting too much time telling them? He wants to “keep things short” but keeps going off on tangents to tell about how everything is stacked up against him and it is only through his faith in God that he gets through them). And while through the lens of history we can see the Morton was actually the tragically noble one, fighting on the side destined to lose, it’s also apparent that he elevates his own nobility and charity.

Admittedly, I read both texts with a sympathetic eye towards the Native Americans, so it was very hard to see anything honest or noble in the stories Bradford told. It may very well be true that deceit and greed were displayed on both sides, but that’s not how it’s remembered: we remember the Native Americans for being the poor, technologically inferior victims to the advantageous, calculating British Empire.

God's Promise To His Plantations

This Sermon by John Cotton is centralized on the theme of lawfully having a place to live and a humans right to live in a certain place. The article starts by explaining that the world was created for us, and that everyone faithul to god can have a place. There is the story of Isaac who built a well not so far from another property owner who justifies his act. He is justified because Issac according to the article, "Didft thou find that God made room for thee, either by lawful dfcent, or purchafe, or Gift, or other Warrantable Right."

The sermon also spoke of the Godly reasons one should move. The reasons one should move is for thhe gaining of knowledge, the travel for mercandize, planting of a colony, the imployment of his talents and gifts better elsewhere, and for the liberty of the ordinances.

The sermon also speaks of evils to be avoided, and these include, when decieveing people threaten the area, men that are overburdened with debts, soverraign authority, special providence of god, incllination to a particular course, the calling of God.

And once a person inhabits a land lawfully, they are given the right to enjoy their land in peace and safety. And these people shall be very fruitful. THis sermon is trully a reminder of God's Promise or gift to man for doing his good deeds.

Shepard and Family Values

Something I've noticed throughout the works of the puritans is that they are very family oriented. When we read Bradstreet she wrote a poem to her children. After the poem she writes an excerpt describing her life to her children. Taylor writes poetry about his children as well. The idea of family appears important to the puritans. Especially proclaiming about mistakes they may have made. It was increasingly important that the puritans tell their children that they as humans made mistakes but that God led them through and helped them.

In Shepards piece he describes his sons birth first. He explains why God took away his mother, and asks him to not blame God. Doing so would not solve anything. Shepard then begins to discuss his life. The puritans wrote down about their own lives. By writing their own experiences they are assisting their future generations to understand the work of God. Along with this they are showing thier offspring that they have made mistakes but that God has led them throughout their struggles. These struggles they understand as the workd of God and how he has a plan for everything.

Family values within the puritan lifestyles appears in many of their works. Family life was important to them and it increased their beliefs in God. If God took away a person of that family they felt that it was due to a specific reason. They never questioned why. They always took the work of God as something to be learned by.

Shepard and his faith

While reading Thomas Shepard's autobiography, it's easy to notice how he struggled with his faith. At certain times he thinks he is unworthy of Christ's love, or he questions Christ's wisdom/righteousness/sanctification, and he even considers atheism. He realizes, though, that it is the Lord who is responsible for all of this "questioning of faith": it is His way of testing us.

Shepard realizes that this test is not a justification of ourselves to God, but rather a justification for our own self-realization. If we can't justify our faith internally, than God is not going to bother testing us. Early in his life, he attributes seemingly trivial things to God's charity (he basically prays to God to help him develop better note-taking skills) and does not realize that because of his belief that God answers his prayers, he becomes a better person. God is not shaping us to be better people: he is shaping our belief in ourselves that we can be better people. Just because we pray to God to solve a problem and it gets solved does not mean that God has taken a special interest in us as an individual. But by believing that God has noticed us, we start to believe that we deserve His notice. This circular logic makes it seem as if faith is born from our want of faith: God is there because we want him to be there. This doesn't make it false faith, but after we realize that God does have a plan, we will "follow the Lord to remote and strange [places],"(53) where we normally would not go. This pays off for Shepard when he meets his wife in a place he describes as "a vile and wicked town and country,"(54).

Through faith, we can see how the Lord beats us down so that we can pick ourselves up; "the Lord [puts] forth his strength in [our] extreme weakness,"(50). The themes of testing faith and the ups and downs of finding God are both attributed to helping the "heart exercise" itself. Shepard wants us to realize for ourselves that we can't sit around waiting for God to come along, lift us up, and dust us off; we have to realize for ourselves that God is behind everything, both good and bad, and the ups and downs in life are all a part of His plan for us to believe in ourselves.

Christian Calling

At first I was a little skeptical about reading a sermon, but when I read further into what Cotton wrote I began to understand its importance. John Cotton seemed to speak to the people as an equal to them. He did not try to speak above them like some ministers do but rather spoke of everyone as one. He explains that having faith was more or a "noble calling" and that when you find God you are eager to do more with your life, like working for god. He says that when you have a job you feel you have a purpose. I can agree with that. I also feel accomplished when I do something constructive with myself instead of being lazy. I feel that the people listening to Cotton's speech would have really gotten into what he was saying. He speaks clearly and gets to the point of he wants to say, there is not extra language added to dazzle the people with his knowledge. He is very convincing on what he is saying and I feel that he was a well liked man among his people.

Anne Bradstreet

Anne Bradstreet is a woman who despite prejudices at the time against woman still kept writing. Her words are inspiring and deep. I especially like how she incorporates her own personal experiences for her writing. I think that her writing gives this time period a different outlook. Alot of the writings have to feal with death and loss of some sort. She has so many writings dedicated to the sad and young deaths of her grandchildren. Anne Bradstreet had so many tragic losses in her life and the fact that she still remained so strong and lived to write about her experiences is extraordinary to me. Upon the Burning of Our House, was on of my favorite exerpts. There was such strong emotion and sent chills down my back as i continued to read. I imagined myself being awakaned in the silent night by a noise and how I would have reacted. This is the first time I am being introduced to alot of these early writers and she is my favorite so far.

Eliza a Virago

Out of the three authors that we read for today, I enjoy Anne Bradstreet the most. By the way her diction and form are presented, I seem to think that her writing is writing of newer authors. Her word choice and the flowing of her poems is quite impressive knowing that she wrote them over three hundred years ago. My favorite of her writings is “In Honour of...Queen Elizabeth.” At first I figured that this poem was going to be boring and irrelevant to anything at all, but as much as I hate to say it, I “feel” as if Bradstreet wrote this poem about forty years ago. She is well ahead of her time. I think that I know Queen Elizabeth on a more personal level and that she is no longer just a person in a history book. My favorite part is when Bradstreet calls Queen Elizabeth a virago, which is described in the footnote as a person of stature with courage and strength, and that is not how I imagined Queen Elizabeth. I enjoyed Bradstreet more than the other authors, but that might just be because I am tired of reading about men. In the end I enjoy the writing style of Bradstreet more than Taylor.

Anne Bradstreet Rebel or Not?

I found the poetry of Anne Bradstreet most intriguing in our readings for this week. She is a fine poet with great talent and obviously great knowledge. I found her knowledge of Greek mythology and classical writers to be quite astounding for a woman of the period. There are many instances in Bradstreet's writing where she seems like she would be a typical Puritan woman, devoted to God and to her husband. Other times there are points where I see Bradstreet's poetry being highly controversial, at least in the context of time she was living. Her poetry was only published in England while she was a live and were not published in America until after her death. I think there is good reason for it. One, the Puritans had little use for art. Two, I don't see many Puritans being okay with the idea of a woman writing and being published. Finally thirdly, I think there is a lot of content in her poem's that would perhaps get her into trouble with the Puritan society. Her feminism for one in her poem about Queen Elizabeth I'm sure would have raised a few eyebrows. The poem emphasizes the strength that women can have and tries to convey the message that women are just as capable as man and could be strong. This goes against my view of what a Puritan society would believe. Also the poem raises Queen Elizabeth up to an almost divine status, even using the word deity. I'm sure that most Puritans would object to such language in that it suggests idol worship. I also sense a bit of questioning of God's will in her poetry about her grandchildren who died at young ages. She proclaims it to be God's will and accepts it and while there is nothing specific in the poem that would point to a questioning, to me there is an implied tone in her feverish acceptance of God's will that almost seems to question what kind of God would will this. Bradstreet is an extraordinarily interesting figure and I think she gives much insight into the lives and thoughts of Puritan women.

Puritan sensibility and style

Reading the works of Bradstreet, Taylor, and the Psalms gives a glimpse into the Puritan thoughts on art and piety. The Psalms, works meant to be widely read, were rather plain. The bland style is acknowledged, but is seen as preferred due to the literal translations the Puritans preferred. Next was the work of Bradstreet. Her work was never really meant for publication, but it was spread throughout the colonies. Part of the reason for the spreading of her works is the devotion to God she exhibits, and partly due to her skill. While she may not have intended to have her work published, she did eventually publish further, going so far as to answer her critics. Much like the Psalms, she kept the form fairly simple and straightforward, and tried to keep her message relating to God and the proper relationship as much as possible. It is true she did speak for women, but first and foremost she spoke of the relationship with God people should have. Taylor, finally, wrote great amounts, but was never published, and, apparently, did not try to become published. His style, of the three, was the most ornate and possibly interesting. He, like Mather, had a strong understanding of classical and biblical references, and worked them into his poetry. Unlike Bradstreet, his poems required a stronger background in the classics, and he paid more attention to form and diction. His works do speak to the proper relationship to God and man, and give praise to God in all of His power, but they are also an art form in themselves. This, I believe, is what separates Taylor from his contemporaries, and may also be a reason he never attempted to publish his works. In a world which cherished simplicity and praise that is straight to the point, Taylor was a wordsmith, and ultimately, an unheard voice among his peers.

Anne Bradstreet: One of the earliest feminists

I noticed a recurring theme in Bradstreet's writing. A lot of her poems touch on the idea of sexism. In pre-colonial times, most of the world was quite sexist; believing that women were inferior. But there were many women, like Bradstreet, who were educated and powerful. In the prologue to her book she speaks on the attitudes of men towards women: "For such despite they cast on female wits: / If what I do prove well, it won't advance, / They'll say it's stol'n, or else it was by chance." (lines 28 - 30). She talks about how if she were to do something great then men would discredit it, insisting she cheated or was lucky. But during this time there was a woman of great power and wisdom for women to look up to: Queen Elizabeth. Bradstreet wrote lots of kind words about her Queen. She even went so far as to say "...thou wert a fleshly Diety:" (line 8, the proem). Here she compares the Queen to a God. "The Poem" goes on to talk about the greatness of Queen Elizabeth. Bradstreet writes about her wisdom, power, love by her people, and good she did for England. She writes about her military victories and goes on to ask "Was ever people better rul'd than hers?" (line 41). She frequently ties in this theme of sexism in her poems about Elizabeth. In "The Poem" she writes "She hath wip'd off th' aspersion of her sex, / That women wisdom lack to play the rex." (lines 29 - 30). Reading Bradstreet you can really tell how strong her love and admiration was for the Queen. Bradstreet also writes about being a wife and a daughter and more importantly; a mother. She wrote several pieces on her children, from a poem on their birth to a letter to her children to her grandchildren. Elizabeth Bradstreet was a wise woman and a great writer and quite possibly one of the earliest pre-colonial feminist minds.

I am obnoxious to each carping tongue:

Anne Bradstreet seems to have been an incredibly brave and suprisingly independent woman, considering she was a Puritan in the 1600s. I enjoyed her poetry greatly, especially the fifth stanza in her Prologue

I am obnoxious to each carping tongue

Who says my hand a needle better fits,

A poet's pen all scorn I should thus wrong

If what I do prove well, it won't advance

They say it's stol'n, or else it was by chance

I was impressed at Bradstreet's ability to acknowledge those who doubt her, showing her understanding of a somewhat unique situation. It must have been very hard to be accepted not only as a poet, but as a woman, in a such a repressive society.

I also loved the poem to her husband. I think it's a common misconception, by me included, that there was no romance amongst the Puritans. However "To My Dear and Loving Husband" is so sweet and romantic, it makes me imagine a couple who is passionate and deeply in love, instead of the stereotypical image the word "Puritan" brings to mind. It's obvious how devoted to her husband Anne Bradstreet was.

Poetry can be such a personal thing, and is often very hard to share. The fact that Anne Bradstreet not only shared her talent, but was accepted for it in the 1600s is reassuring. After all, women's rights have come so far since then...it's nice to see that it must have started somewhere!