A basic foundation of the Puritan
mortality is that every person has a duty to help his or her fellow men and
women. This idea is built out of the synergy of the Covenant of Works and the
Covenant of Grace: if someone does what he or she is supposed to do according
to the laws and will of God, that person will be rewarded. Winthrop and
Bradstreet both approach this idea from similar places.
Winthrop’s sermon approaches the
idea of the covenants through the Law of Nature and the Law of Grace. “First,” says Winthrop,
“the law of nature was given to man in the estate of innocence.” Already, he
has established an important difference in how the two laws are applied to
situations. The law of nature is something natural, it exists without the
effects of adversity that complicated societal interactions can create. The law
of grace, on the other had, is about forgiveness. The way Winthrop explains it,
using the Puritan flair for symbolism, is that each person in a community is
like a component of a single body. It is important that these parts help each
other because, “if one member suffers, all suffer with it, if one be in honor,
all rejoice with it.” The law of grace comes out of love for others.
Bradstreet takes a
similar tact, though her ideas come are filtered through a different lens than
Winthrop’s. Winthrop was a lawyer and governor, so his ideas about communities
coming together have a wider scope, like his “city on a hill” image. Bradstreet
was a mother and wife, so she espouses similar views on a smaller, more
contained stage. In “Loving Husband,” Bradstreet writes, “Nor ought but love from thee
give recompetence. /Thy love is such I can no way repay. /The heavens
reward thee manifold.” This serves an encapsulation of what the covenant of
grace is all about: trusting in others out of love, even if those same people
cannot repay that trust. The only way for the body (community) to function is
through trust. In loving others, the people are abiding by God’s law, and they
are rewarded with a functioning society.
I think the distinction you make between Winthrop as a politician and Bradstreet as a “wife and mother” is interesting. Might these two writers approach indicate something about gender roles in Puritan society? Also, is Bradstreet’s view necessarily “more contained” because she is a homemaker, or because women in that society were repressed? As it turns out, Ann Bradstreet was highly educated, spoke several languages, and had experienced both English culture and life in the new world. On the other hand, she was married at age 16 to a man almost ten years her senior. I like how you take the poetry’s emphasis on personal relationships and use it to translate the Covenant of Grace with God to interactions between people.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, much of the Puritan religiopolitical philosophy seems to be grounded in how human beings ought to treat each other respond to acts of God. You point that out with regards to Winthrop’s explanation of the Church community as part of one body, a biblical motif which he applies specifically to life in the New World. I’m intrigued by your focus on the relationship between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace as two inseparable parts of the same thought process, and am glad you drew my attention to the emphasis on reward. I’m reminded of something Kurt Vonnegut wrote: “I am a humanist, which means, i part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishment after I’m dead.”
The explanations for the two laws, especially the law of nature, seemed vague. While it’s true the laws of grace and nature are grounded in love, the laws do contain some notable differences. The law of nature bounds “one man to another, as the same flesh and image of God.” It teaches that we are all bound to one another, and even though it teaches there is a difference between Christians and others, we are still required to love one another. The law of grace seems to be more about the obligations to other people. Yes, forgiveness is a large piece of the teaching, but not the basis of law. The law requires its followers to help their Christian brother when they need it. Sometimes that requires forgiving a debt, but it can also be a loan or help with labor. With these laws as the basis of their culture Winthrop’s “city on a hill” seemed achievable, and I was a good area of focus for a blog post.
ReplyDeleteMichael Koehler makes a good point about the vagueness of your discussion of the two covenants. Look over your blog and see how you might make it more concrete and focused.
ReplyDelete