Who is anne Hutchinson in 1638?

Answer 1

Anne Hutchinson is a historical figure that went against the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay. She said that as long as you believe in God, you will go to heaven once you pass away, which was against Puritan belief. She also changed around the role of men and women during this time period, which frustrated many Puritans of high social status.

Answer 2

Anne Hutchinson was one of the English dissenters who separated from the Church of England. She held religious meetings in her house and preached her interpretation of the Bible and criticized the New England ministers for deluding their congregation. She was taken to court. At this hearing she claimed to have received direct messages from God (the Antinomian heresy). She was accused of blasphemy and was banished from Massachusetts. She then moved to Roger Williams' colony of Rhode Island, which was a safe haven for all religious backgrounds such as Jews and Quakers.

The banishment happened in 1638.

Anne Hutchinson did not begin by preaching "her own interpretation", she held meetings in her home for other women, where they would review the sermons of the ministers. These meetings were actually encouraged by the clergy, as they believed women should take part in religious study and activity. However, the trouble arose when Anne began stating that the sermons of Rev. Cotton were the only ones that did not preach a Covenant of Works. In so doing, she accused the other ministers of preaching works, not grace.

This was a grave accusation for anyone to make, as the foundation of Puritan theology is the doctrine of Grace (Man can do nothing to save himself, only rely upon the grace of God, thereby making works/actions, of no use towards salvation). Puritan theology had its flaws in this, they did believe that salvation was strictly through grace, but their belief in sanctification (as taught by the Apostle Paul) held that evidence of a person's salvation might be seen through the works they did. You can see where this may cause problems, it blurred the lines between what one man saw as evidence and another as an attempt to secure salvation through works.

Anne believed that only John Cotton preached a true Covenant of Grace. Initially, he supported her, until upon closer questioning it became apparent that her beliefs were more consistent with Antinomianism. This belief has nothing to do with her later claim to receive direct revelation from God.

Antinomianism is a belief that because of salvation, one is no longer required to abide by the laws of man. Be careful here, this is not the same thing as the Calvinist/Puritan belief that Christians are freed from Old Testament law because of Christ, or that sins committed are covered by the death of the Messiah. Rather, this belief held that morally, you were no longer held by human laws. The potential for such a belief was utter chaos (i.e. murder, theft, etc. would therefore no longer be evidence of a person's depravity). It was not this BELIEF that Anne was brought to trial for, despite its potential to encourage license, but her choosing favorites among the ministers, and publishing her opinion. This was unrelated to her being a woman, such divisiveness would have been intolerable among all citizens.

Anne was tried twice, first in November in 1637 and again in March of 1638. During her first trial she was questioned as to why she made such accusations of the other ministers (she was not tried by ministers of the church, church leaders were barred from holding government positions). At this time, Winthrop's actions and questioning show him to be attempting a "teaching" moment, the original intention did not foresee Anne's banishment, but her apology for accusing other ministers of preaching a covenant of works (it was not heresy that they accused her of in her first trial, but slander). He charged her with violating the biblical commandment to "honor thy father and mother", taking a rather complex interpretation of the commandment, as she had dishonored them by dishonoring the church fathers, which required a good deal of "reading in" to the actual meaning of the law.

She was placed under house arrest, and ordered to desist in playing favorites among the ministers. She did not, however, abide by this rule, and in March 1638 was once more brought to court. In this trial, Anne once again defended her position, and after the court broke for a two week period, she remained in the home of the Rev. Cotton for counsel. From the transcripts of the trial, it becomes evident that Cotton, and even Winthrop, thought that during this period she seemed inclined to be counseled towards repentance.

However, when the courts reconvened she made a very grave mistake. Her previous trial in November had record of her defending her belief as to the other ministers. However, in her trial in March, she denied making the prior statements. Brilliantly evasive in her answers, she responded to the court's volley of questions as they grew increasingly dumbfounded by her denial. Nearing the end, she made the final error that would seal her fate. Perhaps she was fatigued (understandably so) from standing for hours on end in court, perhaps she had grown frustrated with being counseled by the ministers, we will never no her reasons, but near the end of the trial she stated that she knew the Rev. Cotton to preach a true Covenant of Grace, and the other ministers to preach a false Covenant of Works, because she had received divine revelation from God himself.

This, set the court in an uproar. Such a belief had been considered heretical by the core doctrines of the Christian church since the early days of Catholicism (this was not merely a Puritan belief, but a logical limitation imposed to maintain some semblance of continuity and consistency to a religion that already had branched off in various directions). Her final statement put an end to the trial. In transcripts, one can almost sense the irritation in the court's tone as it delivers her sentence. Anne, however, seems to have lost track of her answers, or hasn't realized the two errors she has made, for she asks the court "Wherefore am I banished" (in other words, "why?"). The court's terse reply "the court knows wherefore it is satisfied".

Pay careful attention to the progression of this second trial, and then focus at last on the court's final words. They have argued with her for weeks, this is her second trial after a slap on the wrist some four months prior, two weeks past they had thought she was well on the way to being once more a respected member of society, after all, a theological slip now and again will occur, yet she now denies having made the previously recorded statements, and demands proof that she ever made them, to add to that, she makes an utterly foolish claim to receiving divine revelation. In essence, the court has grown tired of the entire ordeal, and sees no possibility to teach or alter the belief of one who has now refused to admit she held the original belief that brought her to trial.

Interestingly enough, the reason for her banishment, as stated on the court document that convicted her, is that she lied to the court, an offense that we today would be punished for, though certainly not by banishment. Should she have been punished in such an extreme way? It is easy for our modern minds to respond in the negative, however, it is important to keep in mind two factors when commenting on historical situations: firstly, the secular society of the time had extreme punishments for offenses we would not consider worthy of little more than imprisonment (you might lose a hand for theft, a punishment that held over from the middle ages well into the 16th and very early 17th centuries), horse thieves were simply hung. Secondly, remember how unpopulated New England was during this time, Anne's initially divisiveness, subsequent lie to the court and final claim to revelation seemed to the court to be evidence of someone who might tear their little colony apart if allowed to remain.

Was it the wisest decision? Probably not, but hindsight is always 20/20, and we cannot know their personal motivations beyond what is recorded in the trial and stated on the conviction. Anne's gender was not a factor, during her first trial, of the three causes listed, only one mentioned she was a woman, and did not take issue with the meetings she held, but with her denunciation of particular ministers.

Last, was Anne correct in her beliefs? Certainly she raised important issues, Puritan theology, like much of reformed doctrine, has the potential (like any belief) to be taken to an extreme, or to be tripped up because of its complexity, certainly some Puritan ministers walked a fine line between confusing their followers with their emphasis on works as a result of sanctification, and this outward show might have been emphasized far more than the covenant of grace.

Additionally, no one can deny that Mrs. Hutchinson was a very intelligent, dare I say brilliant, woman. Yet we cannot suppose that she was any more gifted in this area than other Puritan women of the same class; education, and even the concept of a public education system, was begun by Puritans, everyone must be literate, because only through reading the Bible did they believe one could know God. Because of this, women were educated just as rigorously as men in their formative years.

To conclude: Anne Hutchinson stated that the Rev. Cotton was the only minister among them who preached a true Covenant of Grace, the others she accused (to those who came to her home) as preaching a Covenant of Works. She was tried twice, during her first trial she was told to remedy her beliefs and search her soul for truth, and given house arrest. During her second, she began penitently, and after the break returned surprisingly opposed to cooperate. She made two mistakes: she lied to the court by denying her previous statements, and compounded this with a claim to divine revelation; this made her appear hostile to the court, and they convicted her of lying (please note this: it was not a conviction of heresy that earned her banishment).

So, can we rely on their reason as recorded? To read other motivations into it would be unprofitable, yet many scholars choose to do so with no evidence; keep in mind, had they wished to convict her of heresy, stepping outside her role as a woman or dancing about on the church roof at high noon then they would have felt no guilt or need to hide such reasons, as they would have been publicly considered cause enough for banishment.

Anne Hutchinson initially had support from those who agreed that the other ministers were preaching a less appropriate doctrine, yet she lost this support not because of Winthrop's election, but because of her admission to Antinomianism (a radical belief that lost even the full support of the Rev. Cotton, who initially testified on her behalf in the first trial, and later attempted to counsel her to repentance of the doctrine during the second), and certainly the later claim to divine revelation, these were beliefs that held to extremities of doctrine that were not open to discussion in the church.

Frequently, modern scholars project their own beliefs onto Anne, there is no denying she was a fascinating, bold and brilliant woman, but she was not an early feminist (she even states in her first trial that she did not hold her meetings to teach men the gospel, as she refers to this as a sin), she did not "preach" to others, nor was she banished simply for stated beliefs contrary to the majority, or that questioned authority, her questions raised were valid, but her trial later showed that her beliefs tended towards an extreme that the vast majority found shocking.

She was banished and went to Rhode Island, she died in her mid fifties, when her family home was attacked by Native Americans they had welcomed to share a meal with.

In conclusion, we cannot presume to know the reason behind her statements in the final trial, nor can we know what, if any, other motivation the court as a whole might have had for her banishment. In studying the banishment of Anne Hutchinson, we should consider the ways in which it provides an example of political and legal workings in early America, and always remain aware of the inevitable bias our modern minds will be inclined to.
The reason Anne Hutchinson was banned from MA was because she preached, but only men were allowed to preach.

Answer 3

Anne Hutchinson (July 20, 1591 - August 20, 1643) was the unauthorized Puritan minister of a dissident church discussion group and a pioneer settler in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Netherlands. Her brilliant mind and kindness won admiration and a following. Hutchinson held Bible meetings for women that soon had great appeal to men as well. Eventually, she went beyond Bible study to proclaiming boldly facets of her own theological interpretations of the ministers sermons of that day, some of which offended colony leadership. Great controversy ensued, and after an arduous trial before a jury of officials from both government and clergy, eventually she was banished from her colony.

Answer 4

Anne Hutchinson is an inspirational woman who stood up to the puritans in court to fight for the freedom to follow any religion you wish. Her wish was not granted and she was banned from the colony to live with Indians, and later on entered the Rhode Island.

She was born in England in the year 1591.

Answer 5

She was kicked out of massachusetts and goes to rode island , preached ,and wanted women to be equaly.