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.