I need to write a paragraph on each of these opposing views on the trial of Anne Hutchison 

The Case against Anne Hutchinson
Author(s): Edmund S. Morgan
Source: The New England Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec., 1937), pp. 635-649
Published by: The New England Quarterly, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/359929

.

Accessed: 27/03/2014 10:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The New England Quarterly, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
New England Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=neq

http://www.jstor.org/stable/359929?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

THE CASE AGAINST ANNE HUTCHINSON
EDMUND S. MORGAN

HE tercentenary year of the founding of the Massachu-
setts Bay Colony saw the publication of three biog-

raphies of Anne Hutchinson, all of which eulogized the lady
at the expense of the colony’s orthodox governors. Winnifred
Rugg proclaimed her the ” mother of the twentieth-century
woman,” “a lonely exemplar in newborn America of that
freedom of thought, word, and action that women now accept
as unthinkingly as the air they breathe.” 1 Edith Curtis
averred that for a long period ” almost the sole contribution
that Massachusetts made to American civilization ” was in the
struggle for civil liberty against Governor Winthrop and
his successors, begun by Mrs. Hutchinson.2 Helen Augur
declared that although Winthrop was moved by sincere con-
victions, ” he could not recognize in Anne Hutchinson’s teach-
ings the outlines of another religious and political philos-
ophy with its own right to exist.” 3

Miss Augur implies, of course, that we should recognize
this at once. Indeed, all these biographies are flattering to the
modern reader; for they are based on an assumption, which
we also accept as unthinkingly as the air we breathe, that we
are not only modern but also enlightened. Each of them seems
to say that we have made such ” progress ” since the age of the
Puritans that we can understand both the Puritans and per-
sons like Anne Hutchinson who were ” in advance ” of that
age. We have gone forward so far that we can even accord a
certain condescending sympathy to the orthodox Puritans
themselves. That they were inferior, however, in breadth
of perception to the prophet of liberalism, Anne Hutchinson,
we should never doubt for a moment. This is the implication

1 Winnifred King Rugg, Unafraid: A Life of Anne Hutchinson (Boston
and New York, 1930), 252-253.

2 Edith Curtis, Anne Hutchinson: A Biography (Cambridge, 1930), 93.
3 Helen Augur, An American Jezebel: The Life of Anne Hutchinson

(New York, 1930), 168.

635

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

636 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY

of these three biographies published on the three-hundredth
anniversary of the founding of Massachusetts.

The three-hundredth anniversary of the banishment of
Mrs. Hutchinson is an opportune moment to say a few words
in explanation of her treatment by Massachusetts. Without
attempting to palliate the unfairness of her trial, it may be
of some value to recall the mental climate in which it was con-
ducted. For such a change has come over our ways of thinking
since the seventeenth century that it is difficult for us to
understand the issues involved in her condemnation.

These issues were confined to a sphere of thought that has
become alien to most of us. The introduction and spread of
scientific investigation have given us a theory of knowledge
wholly different from that which prevailed three centuries
ago. The focus of our attention is now on the relative sort of
truth obtainable by observation of the world. It is only in this
empirical realm that we feel able to gain knowledge. We make
little effort to reach the realm of absolute truth, which com-
prehends metaphysics and religion. Many of us believe it to
be non-existent. At most we feel that knowledge of it is un-
attainable, and that one man’s opinion is as good, or as bad,
as another’s.

In seventeenth-century Massachusetts the situation was
reversed. Although the Puritans showed some awareness of,
and respect for, the sort of truth attainable by observation of
the world, they were still chiefly medieval in their theory of
knowledge. They believed that absolute truth, of which, they
said, nature gives only a hint, was revealed to man once and
for all in the Word of God, the Bible. At the Reformation,
Calvin had rejected the interpretation of the Bible used by
the Catholic Church and had made a complete interpretation
of his own. Since that time, two generations of Puritans had
been revising Calvin’s interpretation, and this revision for
them was absolute truth, divine and unquestionable. It was
not merely the statement of things as they are in the world;
it was truth eternal, unlimited by time or space. It was the

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 637

way of salvation. By it the Puritans had determined to mold
their daily lives, their church, and their state. And to make
this determination a reality they had crossed the Atlantic and
had settled on the shores of Massachusetts Bay.

While they were still maintaining a precarious existence,
Anne Hutchinson joined them. At first she was welcomed as
the godly wife of a pious and successful merchant; but before
she had been long in Massachusetts, she broached a doctrine
which was absolutely inconsistent with the principles upon
which the colony had been founded. She began to affirm a
new basis for absolute truth: immediate personal communion
with the Holy Ghost. If this communion had been merely for
the purposes of illuminating the meaning of Holy Scripture,
the Puritans might have had no quarrel with her. The com-
munion which she described, however, was one which re-
sulted in immediate revelation apart from the Word. To
accept her doctrine would mean the abandonment of the fun-
damental belief for which the Puritans had crossed the water
– the belief that truth for man was to be found in the Bible.
It would mean a complete change in their daily lives, in their
church, and in their state.

As for their daily life, the Puritans saw that the new doctrine
would probably encourage or condone indolence and loose-
living. In the communion described by Mrs. Hutchinson the
believer was completely passive. He did not scrutinize his life
to see whether it was in accord with the precepts of the Bible;
he merely waited for the Holy Ghost. As Thomas Welde put
it, ” he is to stand still and waite for Christ to doe all for
him. … And if he fals into sinne, he is never the more dis-
liked of God, nor his condition never the worse.” 4 This
would remove all the rational basis for moral endeavor which
the Puritan theologians had been painfully constructing since
the time of Calvin.5 The magistrates of Massachusetts found

4 Antinomianism in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, C. F. Adams, Editor,
(Boston, 1894), 74. 5 See Publications, Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xxxii, 247-300: Perry
Miller, ” The Marrow of Puritan Divinity.”

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

638 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY

an example of what acceptance of this heresy meant in the
refusal of Mrs. Hutchinson’s followers to join the expedition
against the Pequots.

As for the church, the Puritans must have realized that
Mrs. Hutchinson’s dogma destroyed most of the reasons for
its existence. For in the list of eighty-two errors refuted by a
synod of New England ministers, and declared by most mem-
bers of the court which condemned her to have sprung from
her doctrine of revelation, are found these two statements:

Errour 22. None are to be exhorted to beleeve, but such whom we
know to be the elect of God, or to have his Spirit in them effectu-
ally.
Error 53. No Minister can teach one that is annoynted by the
Spirit of Christ, more then hee knowes already unlesse it be in
some circumstances.6

In other words, the minister and the church were no longer
needed, ” unlesse it be in some circumstances,” since God,
according to Mrs. Hutchinson, preferred to deal with His
children directly.

In the same way she would have done away with the state
as it then existed. Her view might have been compatible with
a state concerned only with secular ends, but to the Puritans
such a state would have seemed a sorry affair. Their com-
munity was a spiritual association devoted primarily to spir-
itual ends; and it found its laws in the general principles
deducible from the Bible and from a rational observation of
God’s governance of the world. Her insistence on revelation
apart from the Word as the source of truth had the corollary
” that the will of God in the Word, or directions thereof, are
not the rule whereunto Christians are bound to conforme
themselves, to live thereafter.” 7 Therefore the laws which the
Puritan state was enforcing could have no divine validity for
her. If the state were to exist, it would have to be simply as a

6 Adams, Antinomianism in . . .Massachusetts Bay, lo2 and 112.
7 Adams, Antinomianism in . . Massachusetts Bay, 96.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 639
secular association; and that was a concept which the Puritan
mind could not entertain.

These results of Mrs. Hutchinson’s doctrines became ap-
parent before the members of the orthodox group knew for
certain what those doctrines were, for Mrs. Hutchinson had
carefully refrained from committing herself in public. It was
clear to the magistrates of the Bay Colony, however, that the
nub of her teaching must consist in the idea of personal rev-
elation, and that its consequences were at war with the ideals
of Massachusetts. Because the Puritans had undergone great
hardships in order to put those ideals into practice, it was
only to be expected that they should do their utmost to main-
tain them. This we of to-day can readily understand. What
is more difficult for us to comprehend is that the Puritans did
not regard Mrs. Hutchinson’s attack on their ideals as a dif-
ference of opinion. Miss Augur is correct in stating that Win-
throp ” could not recognize in Anne Hutchinson’s teachings
the outlines of another religious and political philosophy
with its own right to exist.” To concede that would have been
to acknowledge that his own political and religious philos-
ophy was wrong, and such a notion never entered his head.
He could not regard the case as that of one opinion against
another; it was personal opinion against truth. And the terri-
fying fact was that this personal opinion was gaining ground;
the Word of God was being undermined by a woman. Win-
throp saw the commonwealth which he had done much to
found – which had been consecrated to absolute truth –
rocked to its foundations by the seductive teachings of a clever
lady. He could not help regarding that woman as an enemy
of God. As governor he was bound to do his utmost to protect
the Word and the state from this instrument of Satan.

To appreciate Winthrop’s sense of responsibility it is neces-
sary to recall the Puritans’ conception of the magistrate’s
office. This requires an examination of that classic of Pro-
testant political theory, the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos. Here
we find the origin of the state described in these terms:

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

640 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY

Now we read of two sorts of covenants at the inaugurating of
kings, the first between God, the king, and the people, that the
people might be the people of God. The second, between the king
and the people, that the people shall obey faithfully, and the king
command justly.8

The Vindicie explains that in these covenants ” kings swear
as vassals to observe the law of God,” 9 and subjects promise
to obey them within the limits thus set.

From numerous statements of the Puritans it is clear that
the theories of government outlined in the Vindicie were
those followed in Massachusetts. Although the foundation of
the government was the charter from the king, all who came
into the community were by tacit assumption regarded as
” bound by soleme covenant to walke by the rule of Gods
word in all their conversation.” 10 Winthrop explained the

origin of the government in this fashion:

We A. B. C. etc. consented to cohabite in the Massachusetts, and
under the government set up among us by his Majesty’s patent
or grant for our mutual safety and wellfare, we agreed to walke
according to the rules of the gospell. And thus you have both a
christian common weale and the same founded upon the
patent.” 11

It was pursuant to this social compact that the oath adminis-
tered to officers of the government provided that they should
act ” according to the Laws of God, and for the advancement
of his Gospell, the Laws of this land, and the good of the
people of this Jurisdiction.” 12

That the compact was not merely between the people them-
selves and the magistrates whom they set up, but also between

8 A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, H. J. Laski, Editor, (New York,
1923), 71.

9 Laski, Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, 73.
10 Massachusetts Records, I, 272.
11 A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the History of the Colony

of Massachusetts-Bay, Thomas Hutchinson, Editor, (Boston, 1769), 85-
12 The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts, Max Farrand, Editor, (Cam-

bridge, 1929), 56.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 641
the people, the magistrates, and God, is indicated by the lan-
guage in which the Puritans spoke of themselves. Always they
were the ” People of God,” and frequently they referred to
their commonwealth as Israel. Furthermore, they believed the
consequences of their compact to be those specified by the
author of the Vindiciwa. The latter pointed out that according
to the compact, ” the king himself, and all the people should
be careful to honour and serve God according to His will re-
vealed in His word, which, if they performed, God would
assist and preserve their estates: as in doing the contrary,
he would abandon, and exterminate them.”‘3 In like man- ner the Puritan ministers explained to the people of New
England that they were a chosen people and could not ” sin
at so cheap a rate, or expect so few stripes for their disobedi-
ence ” as those who had no covenant with the Almighty: 1″
Whilst a covenant people carry it so as not to break covenant, the
Lord blesseth them visibly, but if they degenerate, then blessings
are removed and woful Judgments come in their room.’5

So, while the Puritans were submissive and obedient to
God – that is, so long as they submitted to His will as ex-
pressed in the Word – He would prosper all their affairs.
But if they strayed and fell to open sin, He would let loose
His wrath upon them. As the Vindicixa points out, there are
two respondents to God’s covenant:

. . . the king and Israel, who by consequence are bound one for
another and each for the whole. For as when Caius and Titus
have promised jointly to pay to their creditor Seius a certain sum,
each of them is bound for himself and his companion, and the
creditor may demand the sum of which of them he pleases. In
the like manner the king for himself, and Israel for itself are
bound with all circumspection to see that the church be not

13 Laski, Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, 72.
14 Urian Oakes, New England Pleaded with . .. [Election Sermon, 1673],

(Cambridge, 1673), 14.
15 Increase Mather, “A Discourse concerning the Danger of Apostacy”

[Election Sermon, 1677] in A Call from Heaven etc. (Boston, 1685), 61.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

642 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY

damnified: if either of them be negligent of their covenant, God
may justly demand the whole of which of the two He pleases,
and the more probably of the people than of the king, and for
that many cannot so easily slip away as one, and have better
means to discharge the debts than one alone.16

The implications of this theory are numerous. Probably
the most important is the doctrine that subjects must rebel
when the magistrates command something contrary to the
Law of God. More to the point in the present instance, how-
ever, is the notion that if the ruler does not punish outward
breaches of that law, the whole people may suffer punishment
at the hands of the Almighty Himself. Solomon Stoddard put
the case as late as 17o3:

Under the best government many times there will be a breaking
out of sin, though Rulers and People do what they can to prevent
it, yet particular persons will be guilty of flagitious crimes. But
if the people doe their duty to inform Rulers, and Rulers theirs
in bearing a due testimony against them, these are not the sins
of the Land; God don’t charge these sins upon the Country: the
country is not guilty of the Crimes of particular Persons, unless
they make themselves guilty; if they countenance them, or con-
nive at them, they make themselves guilty by participation: But
when they are duely witnessed against, they bring no publick
guilt.17

Increase Mather had the same doctrine in mind when in 1677
he exhorted the governors:

I know you cannot change mens hearts, yet you may doe much
(if God help you) towards the effecting an outward Reformation,
which will procure outward blessings and prevent outward Judg-
ments and desolations. There is pride in the hearts of men, you
cannot Reform that, but there is pride in Apparel, which the Lord
has said he will punish for, you may cause that to be reformed.
There is Drunkeness in the sight of God, which doth not fall

16 Laski, Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, 91.
17 Solomon Stoddard, The Way for a People to Live Long [Election Sermon,

17o3], (Boston, 1703), 8.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 643
under your Cognizance, but Drunkeness in the sight of men, and
the occasions of it, do; which you may and ought to remove.”8

This was doubtless the reason which Massachusetts gave to
Plymouth when she imprisoned John Alden for alleged com-
plicity in a murder on the Kennebec in Maine. For Governor
Bradford, after expressing the Pilgrims’ dissatisfaction with
the action of Massachusetts, apparently refers to such a justi-
fication:

But yet being assured of their Christian love, and perswaded
what was done was out of godly zeale, that religion might not
suffer, nor sinne any way covered or borne with, … they did
indeavore to appease and satisfie them the best they could.”1

Bradford records also the testimony of several ministers who
had been questioned concerning the duty of the magistrate
in seeking out instances of disobedience of the Mosaic laws
regarding adultery and sodomy. The answer of Mr. Reynor
is typical. He declared that the magistrate must follow up
every suggestion of indulgence in these crimes in order to
punish them, ” or els he may betray his countrie and people
to the heavie displeasure of God.” 20

No one was more thoroughly imbued with this socio-
religious theory of criminology than Governor Winthrop. At
the outset of the Bay Colony experiment, he had advised his
fellow immigrants that ” the care of the publique must over-
sway all private respects.” 21 Later, in his controversy with
young Henry Vane, Winthrop reminded the colonists that
the nature of their incorporation ” tyes every member thereof
to seeke out and entertaine all means that may conduce to the
wellfare of the bodye, and to keepe off whatsoever doth ap-
peare to tend to theire damage.” 22 Granted this, it was the

18 Mather, “Danger of Apostacy,” 111-112.
19 William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation: 162o-i647 (Boston,

1912), II, 186-187.
20 Bradford, Plymouth Plantation, II, 317- 21 Winthrop Papers, ii (Boston, 1931), 293.
22 Hutchinson, Original Papers, 68.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

644 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY

social obligation of every member of the commonwealth to
refrain from breaking the Lord’s commandments, for by such
a breach he might bring down the divine wrath on the whole
community. And it was, of course, the duty of the magistrate
to protect the community by punishing the individual sinner,
lest the community appear to condone sin. As Winthrop put
it, ” better it is some member should suffer the evill they bring
upon themselves, than that, by indulgence towards them, the
whole familye of God in this countrey should be scattered, if
not destroyed.” 23

It was with these beliefs in mind that the magistrates of
Massachusetts began the trial of Mrs. Hutchinson. There
were undoubtedly numerous personal animosities that led to
the inauguration of the prosecution – the pique of the min-
isters and the jealousy of the magistrates. Theoretically, how-
ever, the trial was based on the charge that Mistress Hutchin-
son had broken the Law of God. Now it must be remembered
that before her trial this wise woman had never publicly ad-
vanced her tenet of personal revelation. Neither had she
openly professed any doctrines that could be sanely regarded
as contrary to the Law of God. It was clear, nevertheless, that
some one must have been urging such views privately, for the
synod of ministers had found eighty-two of them to condemn.
It was common rumor that that some one was Mrs. Hutchin-
son. Accordingly in October, 1637, she was summoned before
the General Court to answer the scanty list of charges that the
magistrates had been able to draw up.

Although she may have instigated it, Mrs. Hutchinson had
been wise enough not to sign the petition in favor of John
Wheelwright, because of which the General Court had been
disfranchising, fining, and even banishing, many of her fol-
lowers. And so now, when the court attempted to deal ” with
the head of all this faction,” they could accuse her merely with
” countenancing and incouraging ” those who had been sow-
ers of sedition. To this was added the even weaker charge,

23 Hutchinson, Original Papers, ioo.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 645
that she held in her house meetings which had been con-
demned by the general assembly as a thing not tolerable nor
comely in the sight of God nor fitting for her sex. Following
these was a last and more serious indictment, that she had
traduced the faithful ministers of the colony.24

The ground of the first specification was that in entertain-
ing those who had been subsequently convicted of sedition,
she had broken the fifth commandment: she had dishonored
the governors, who were the fathers of the commonwealth.
Her nimble wit soon put her judges in a dilemma.

Mrs. H. But put the case Sir that I do fear the Lord and my
parents, may not I entertain them that fear the Lord because my
parents will not give me leave? 25

After attempting to find his way around this logical im-
passe, Governor Winthrop, good Puritan casuist though he
was, was forced to take refuge in dogmatic assertion.

Gov. We do not mean to discourse with those of your sex but
only this; you do adhere unto them and do endeavor to set for-
ward this faction and so you do dishonour us.26

The court next called upon her to justify the weekly meet-
ings which she held at her house. In answer she quoted two
passages of Scripture: Titus 11, 3-5, which indicates that the
elder women should instruct the younger, and Acts xviii, 26,
wherein ” Aquila and Priscilla tooke upon them to instruct
Apollo, more perfectly, yet he was a man of good parts, but
they being better instructed might teach him.”

Court. See how your argument stands, Priscilla with her hus-
band, tooke Apollo home to instruct him privately, therefore
Mistris Hutchinson without her husband may teach sixty or
eighty.

24 This paragraph and subsequent ones are based on the two accounts of
the trial printed in Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 235-
284. See, also, 164.

25 Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 238.
26 Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 238.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

646 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
Hutch. I call them not, but if they come to me, I may instruct

them.
Court. Yet you shew us not a rule.
Hutch. I have given you two places of Scripture.
Court. But neither of them will sute your practise.
Hutch. Must I shew my name written therein? 27

Again, after some further argument, Winthrop resorted to
bare assertion, enunciating once more the Puritan theory of
criminology:
. . we see no rule of God for this, we see not that any should
have authority to set up any other exercises besides what au-
thority hath already set up and so what hurt comes of this you
will be guilty of and we for suffering you.28

Undaunted by the failure to prove the first two counts, the
court now moved to the final and most serious accusation,
that she had insulted the ministers. The basis of this charge
lay in a conference held the preceding December between the
ministers and Mrs. Hutchinson. In spite of the fact that the
conference had been private, the ministers now testified that
she had designated them all, except Mr. Cotton and Mr.
Wheelwright, as laboring under a covenant of works. The
Puritan ministers were still filled with the zeal of the Ref-
ormation, and no epithet could have been better designed to
arouse their ire than the one which they now declared that
she had applied to them. When the court adjourned for the
day, she was facing her most difficult problem.

That night she went over some notes taken at the Decem-
ber conference by her opponent Mr. Wilson, pastor of the
Boston church. Finding that the ministers’ testimonies against
her were inaccurate, she demanded, when the trial reopened
the following morning, that the ministers be made to give
their evidence under oath. This created a great stir and only
served to strengthen the hard feeling of the court against her.
Finally, however, John Cotton, teacher of the Boston church

27 Adams, Antinomianism in . .. Massachusetts Bay, 168-169.
28 Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 241.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 647
and most respected theologian of the colony, was called upon
to give his version of the conference. With careful diplomacy
he soothed the injured pride of the other ministers and
brought his speech to a dramatic close by declaring: ” I must
say that I did not find her saying they were under a covenant
of works, nor that she said they did preach a covenant of
works.” 29 And though pressed by the other ministers, he firmly
stood his ground.

With this testimony the case against Mrs. Hutchinson was
about to collapse. The first two specifications against her had
been too weakly sustained to warrant any grave condemna-
tion, and now the revered Mr. Cotton had practically de-
stroyed the basis of the only remaining charge. Her triumph
was too much for her. Hitherto she had been on guard and
had dexterously parried every rude thrust of her prosecutors.
Had she been content to hold her tongue at this point, her
judges might have felt obliged to dismiss the case for lack of
evidence, or at best would have passed some vote of censure
in order to save their faces. Instead of continuing to rely on
her native wit, she proceeded to justify herself by an imme-
diate divine revelation.

Her prosecutors could not have hoped for a better ground
upon which to condemn her. The surviving descriptions of
the trial make it clear that the men who were at the same time
her prosecutors and her judges had determined her guilt in
advance and were merely searching for sufficient evidence on
which to convict her. She herself gave them that evidence. By
claiming an immediate revelation, she denied the funda-
mental tenet upon which the Puritan state was founded: that
the Will of God was expressed directly only in the Word. Now
all the previous charges could be dropped and her conviction
based on this alone. And so Winthrop records that

. . . the Court and all the rest of the Assembly (except those of
her owne party) did observe a speciall providence of God, that

29 Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 266.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

648 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY

(while shee went about to cover such offences as were laid to her
charge, by putting matters upon proofe, and then quarrelling
with the evidence) her owne mouth should deliver her into the
power of the Court, as guilty of that which all suspected her for,
but were not furnished with proofe sufficient to proceed against
her. …

The Court saw now an inevitable necessity to rid her away,
except wee would bee guilty, not only of our own ruine, but also
of the Gospel, so in the end the sentence of banishment was pro-
nounced against her, and shee was committed to the Marshall, till
the Court should dispose of her.0?

Thus ended the trial of Anne Hutchinson, a proceeding
that scarcely deserves to be dignified by that name. Our in-
dignation at its unfairness is commendable; for members of
a modern state founded on self-government should be acutely
conscious of the value of the forms of justice. We should
remember, however, that this proceeding took place in an
infant community the leaders of which looked on democracy
as the worst form of government. This in no way excuses the
unfairness of the trial, but it does make it easier to recognize
the appropriateness of the sentence. Granted that Mrs. Hutch-
inson proclaimed a belief in immediate revelation, it was
quite impossible that she should have been retained in the
Puritan commonwealth. That our natural sympathies lie
with her, rather than with the rulers of the colony, is simply
an indication that the Puritan experiment failed. It was be-
cause her opinions were repellant to them that the Puritans
banished Anne Hutchinson, but they sincerely believed that
in thus protecting themselves they were also protecting God’s
eternal truth. Winthrop summed up the case in characteristic
fashion, with words that have the ring of genuine feeling:

Thus it pleased the Lord to heare the prayers of his afflicted
people (whose soules had wept in secret, for the reproach which
was cast upon the Churches of the Lord Jesus in this Countrey, by
occasion of the divisions which were grown amongst us, through

0so Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 177 and 18o.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ANNE HUTCHINSON 649

the vanity of some weake minds, which cannot seriously affect any
thing long, except it bee offered them under some renewed shape)
and by the care and indevour of the wise and faithfull Ministers
of the Churches, assisted by the Civill authority, to discover this
Master-piece of the old Serpent, and to break the brood by scat-
tering the Leaders, under whose conduct hee had prepared such
Ambushment, as in all reason would soon have driven Christ and
Gospel out of New England, (though to the ruine of the instru-
ments themselves, as well as others) and to the repossessing of
Satan in his ancient Kingdom; It is the Lords work, and it is mar-
vellous in our eyes.31

31 Adams, Antinomianism in . . . Massachusetts Bay, 185-186.

This content downloaded from 208.95.51.163 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:03:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

• Article Contents

p. 635
p. 636
p. 637
p. 638
p. 639
p. 640
p. 641
p. 642
p. 643
p. 644
p. 645
p. 646
p. 647
p. 648
p. 649

• Issue Table of Contents

The New England Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec., 1937), pp. 619-847
Volume Information [pp. 831-847]
Front Matter [pp. 827-829]
A New Managing Editor [pp. 619]
The Feast of Belshazzar [pp. 620-634]
The Case against Anne Hutchinson [pp. 635-649]
Literary Aspects of American Anti-Imperialism 1898-1902 [pp. 650-667]
John Hull: Mintmaster [pp. 668-684]
Who Wrote “Ethan Allen’s Bible”? [pp. 685-696]
Benjamin Gale [pp. 697-716]
William James and Henry Adams [pp. 717-742]
Jeremy Belknap: Pioneer Nationalist [pp. 743-751]
Memoranda and Documents
A Yankee on the New York Frontier 1833-1851 [pp. 752-772]
A Note on “Emerson and Communism” [pp. 772-773]
The Flight of Henry James the First [pp. 774-775]
Whittier’s “The Demon Lady” [pp. 776-780]
Free Soil in Berkshire County 1781 [pp. 781-785]
To Saratoga and Back 1777 [pp. 785-789]
Thoreau and Zimmermann [pp. 789-792]
Book Reviews
Review: untitled [pp. 793-795]
Review: untitled [pp. 795-796]
Review: untitled [pp. 797]
Review: untitled [pp. 798-799]
Review: untitled [pp. 800-801]
Review: untitled [pp. 802]
Review: untitled [pp. 803-804]
Review: untitled [pp. 804-805]
Review: untitled [pp. 806-807]
Review: untitled [pp. 807-808]
Review: untitled [pp. 809-811]
Review: untitled [pp. 812-813]
Review: untitled [pp. 814-815]
Review: untitled [pp. 815-816]
Review: untitled [pp. 817-818]
Review: untitled [pp. 818-820]
Review: untitled [pp. 820-821]
Short Notices
Review: untitled [pp. 822]
Review: untitled [pp. 822-823]
Review: untitled [pp. 823]
Review: untitled [pp. 824]
Review: untitled [pp. 824-825]
Review: untitled [pp. 825]
Review: untitled [pp. 826]
Additional Corrections for June, 1937 [pp. 830]
Back Matter