Morality was a prime focus in daily
Puritan life. Besides believing in predestination, the puritans followed the covenant
of works and grace, striving as a community to work and live together for God’s
reward: salvation. The covenant of works served as moral law, promising life
for obedience and death for disobedience. To help others follow that path,
certain leaders would read sermons that would help relate the biblical text to
the Puritans’ daily lives. Such sermons would follow a logical process that not
only expound on the text grammatically and figuratively, but tackle it symbolically
(which was the essential Puritan way of seeing life).
Utilizing his law background, John
Winthrop addresses the concept of covenant of works and grace. When speaking of
his third reason in his sermon, Winthrop lectures, “every man might have need
of others.” By this statement, Winthrop focuses on the community, functioning
as a group and their obligations towards each other. In addition, Winthrop
focused on moral law (which he likens to “Law of Nature”), asking for all men “to
love his neighbor as himself.” This focus illustrates Winthrop’s sense of
rightness and appropriateness towards the development of Puritanism.
Besides
sermons, other writers lend their talents to the development of Puritanism.
Anne Bradstreet’s poetry highlights Puritan themes, illustrating moments of
daily Puritan life. In addition, her poetry was personal, focusing on her relationship
with God, her husband, and her idea of Puritanism. While Winthrop addressed to
the whole community, Bradstreet focused on the individual, as he or she fits in
the community, and the individual path of salvation. In her poem, “Upon the
Burning of our House,” Bradstreet tells three valuable lessons she learned from
the fire that destroyed her home. As she watched her house turn to dust,
Bradstreet offers thanks to her Lord, explaining that “it was His own, it was
not mine, far be it that I should repine.” Her explanation asserts that all her
possessions were actually God’s; therefore, she cannot complain for he has the
right to take the possessions away. This lesson leads to the next, which is
that earthly pleasures are fleeting (“Adieu, Adieu, all’s vanity”). Finally,
Bradstreet realizes that her true wealth does not reside on earth, but in
heaven. Bradstreet’s writing is a meditative questioning, an introspection to
question doubt, allow God to take up the burden, and let faith in God’s word
become a sense of release.
Both works
illustrate the Puritan way of life with a focus on community and the individual
working for the community. Additionally, Winthrop and Bradstreet have earnest
ideas towards the development of Puritanism, and allows the reader to see Puritanism
not as a religion, but as a culture.
Hi Kyle, my name is Denise and I choose your blog to comment on. I’ll start with one of your observations. “The covenant of works served as moral law, promising life for obedience and death for disobedience.” I realize that in early Puritan times religion and fear of God were used to govern the masses. That being said, if I were living in those times, Puritanism would not be high on my list as a religion of choice. I want no part of a religion that promises death for disobedience. And in 1641 they did indeed invoke the death penalty, for adultery, on Mary Latham, a girl barely 18, and her accomplice, James Brittin. I do realize when trying to establish a colony in a hostile world that discipline would be of paramount importance, but death, under any circumstances, is not a fitting punishment for adultery. In fact John Winthrop was tried in 1645 for over stepping his authority.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of our assignment involved Anne Bradstreet. It appears that most of us, myself included, chose her poem Verses on the Burning of Our House as a means to satisfy part two of our assignment. I do not question that choice, but I believe, In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth is a poem of much more significance. In that poem Anne Bradstreet pens verses that fly in the face of Puritan values of that time. In Verses on the Burning of Our House, Anne Bradstreet exhibits resignation, but in, In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth she exhibits courage. In my opinion she uses several verses in, In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth as a guise to champion equality for women or better yet to assert the superiority of women. We could go a little further and conclude, as others have before me, that that very poem is the beginning of American Feminism. And what a clever way to birth American Feminism, than to disguise it as paying homage to a queen.
From In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth , I quote,
“But can you Doctors now this point dispute,
She's argument enough to make you mute,”
Considering the time period (1643) this is an extraordinary poem to have been written by a woman, especially a woman that was a Puritan living in Puritan dominated settlements in Massachusetts.
Kyle, I truly enjoyed your blog and I do apologize if it sounds like I used it to platform the beginning of American Feminism, but I feel Anne Bradstreet is an early “pioneer” in equality for women and I also feel In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth is a very important poem in the history of that movement.
Mr. Bonnet,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your distinction between Winthrop and Bradstreet; Winthrop addresses the general Puritanical community while Bradstreet takes a more personal approach to her writings. Therefore, Winthrop and Bradstreet compliment each other perfectly when paired to illustrate the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. As we heard in the lecture, symbolic thinking was large part of Puritanical thought. Winthrop's symbolic/didactic sermons addressed overarching moral law (as you pointed out) for the community as a whole, while Bradstreet's more intimate writings contain symbolic, as well as emblematic, elements present in daily life.
I agree with the comment Ms. Weaks made about the Puritans using execution in their practice, and Puritanism would definitely be fairly low on my list of favorite religions. However, I wonder if the 17th century execution of Mary Latham and her lover could not also be attributed to the time period during which Puritanism blossomed, not simply to the extreme conditions of Puritanism itself. Any religion sounds severe when death is a penalty for disobedience. Many criminals today blame their outbreaks of violence on religious reasons.
The idea of moderate (or cafeteria) Puritans weighs on my mind. Too much/too severe a condition of anything is a bad thing. During the 17th century people were executed for a number of offenses; murder, attempted murder/assassination, among other considerably heinous offenses were punishable by death. However, less severe crimes like forgery and theft could also be punishable by death. The time period in combination with the unwavering obedience to God seem like the two forces that made room for execution in Puritanism. Perhaps some Puritans were "cafeteria Puritans" that may have upheld the Puritanical beliefs without forcing them on or executing others.