Janice Knight argues that the standard scholarly portrait of American Puritanism stands to be corrected and supplemented. She begins by observing that from Cotton Mather to Perry Miller, historians have portrayed American Puritans as a unified group that upheld a coherent orthodoxy. Knight, on the other hand, hears what she calls "significant differences and alternative voices within Puritan culture" (2). In fact, she identifies two distinct groups with well-known leaders in each one. Knight distinguishes between what she terms the "Intellectual Fathers," roughly equivalent to Miller's orthodoxy, and the "Spiritual Brethren." In contrast to the first group, the "Spiritual Brethren" embraced a "mystical strain of piety" that was "associated with Augustinianism." Another distinction was that, contrasted with the first group, the second emphasized "divine benevolence over power" and "converted biblical metaphors of kingship into ones of kinship" (3).
Knight says that the "Intellectual Fathers" were represented in England by William Perkins and, above all, William Ames. In America, the Amesian tradition was carried forward by Thomas Hooker, Thomas Shepard, Peter Bulkeley, John Winthrop and most of the ministers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The "Spiritual Brethren," on the other hand, were led in England by John Preston and, above all, Richard Sibbes. In America, the Sibbesian tradition was upheld most prominently by John Cotton, John Davenport, and Henry Vane.
Assuming for the moment that Knight's distinction is valid, someone might ask how it could have been so consistently overlooked in the past. In response, Knight says that in England, in spite of their differences, Puritans were held to together by common enemies like Catholicism and High Anglicanism. In America, following the Antinomian Controversy (1636-1638), the apologies written by Shepard and Winthrop actually began the process of establishing what Perry Miller would eventually identify as a univocal Puritanism. That is to say, from very early times, differences among American Puritans were white washed and suppressed. From the time of Miller forward, scholarship on the Puritans has tended to simply reinforce his reigning interpretation, while investigating some aspect or another. Even those historians who have identified something different in John Cotton have typically seen him as exceptional. But, again, Knight interprets Cotton as representative of a dissenting tradition that originated in England and of which several other popular leaders were a part.
For the remainder of the book, Knight explains and illustrates how her thesis is no mere academic distinction, but that it actually serves as a sort of interpretive master key. Her basic insight, she says, is vital to a full understanding of historic episodes like the Antinomian Controversy and Henry Vane's loss of the governorship in 1637. But more than anything else, Knight's distinction shines a light on significantly different ideas, beliefs, and practices within Puritanism. These include the following: the attributes of God, theological anthropology, the nature of sin, the process of conversion, preaching styles, love for God, self, and neighbor, and pastoral roles and responsibilities. From beginning to end, Knight attempts to show that on each of these points, we can readily perceive what she identifies as two different and coherent traditions.
I am not necessarily convinced that Knight's basic thesis is correct. To follow up on this question, readers might look at Michael Winship's book titled "Making Heretics." In his endnotes, Winship, a fine historian, says that Knight is off, and he offers some of his reasons for saying so. I'm giving this book 4 stars because, even if Knight turns out to be incorrect, it's obvious that a great amount of research went into this book, and it is well-written. Regarding the thesis, read the book for yourself and see what you think.
Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club?
Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Flip to back
Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism Paperback – September 1, 1997
by
Janice Knight
(Author)
|
Janice Knight
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
-
Print length301 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherHarvard University Press
-
Publication dateSeptember 1, 1997
-
Dimensions6.25 x 0.75 x 9.5 inches
-
ISBN-100674644883
-
ISBN-13978-0674644885
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New EnglandHardcover$39.13$39.13FREE Shipping by AmazonGet it as soon as Tuesday, Aug 24Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
The Spirit, the Affections, and the Christian TraditionHardcover$60.00$60.00+ $15.48 shippingOnly 1 left in stock (more on the way).
The Desert FathersPaperback$14.43$14.43FREE Shipping by AmazonGet it as soon as Tuesday, Aug 24Only 3 left in stock - order soon.
Communion in the Spirit: The Holy Spirit as the Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)Robert W. Caldwell lllPaperback$29.00$29.00+ $35.48 shippingIn Stock.
Seeking Church: Emerging Witnesses to the Kingdom (Missiological Engagements)Darren T. DuerksenPaperback$27.57$27.57+ $13.12 shippingOnly 1 left in stock - order soon.
Editorial Reviews
Review
Brilliant...Attuned to the insights of recent literary theory, Knight shows how that assertion of an early unity influenced the idiom of later canonical American authors. Her book is both a rigorous work of scholarship and an artful plea for intellectual diversity. (Times Literary Supplement)
Knight offers nuanced and sensitive interpretations of many Puritan texts, teasing out differences of emphasis and sensibility within the widely shared religious culture of early New England. She demonstrates that a broadly consistent Puritan theology could support strikingly different interpretations in the hands of particular preachers and writers. (Eric Hinderaker Religious Studies Review)
In this pioneering and provocative book, adapted from the author's Harvard dissertation, Janice Knight offers a most helpful, if controversial, corrective to one of the chief historiographical conclusions regarding American Puritanism of the first-half of the seventeenth century 'Orthodoxies in Massachusetts presents an immensely provocative and cogently argued thesis, debunking the older myth of Puritan monolith Janice Knight has shown the other strand of Puritan orthodoxy, the Sibbesian-Cottonian tradition, and how the articulated resistance of this group before, during, and after the Antinomian controversy can help to contextualize and rectify our reading of early American Puritanism. (Paul C-H Lim Westminster Theological Journal)
Knight's work is passionately written...Whether or not one has an investment in the ongoing debates about the import of New England Puritanism, Knight reminds us that New Englanders sought passionately to understand better their relationship to the divine and how to make it evident in their social relations. Orthodoxies in Massachusetts demands that we acknowledge the varieties of religious experience this search engendered. (Philip F. Gura William and Mary Quarterly)
Janice Knight has given us a provocative and elegant book that yields new understandings of Puritanism in old and New England...This is a work of intellectual and literary history of a very high order. (Mark Valeri Journal of Religion)
Knight offers nuanced and sensitive interpretations of many Puritan texts, teasing out differences of emphasis and sensibility within the widely shared religious culture of early New England. She demonstrates that a broadly consistent Puritan theology could support strikingly different interpretations in the hands of particular preachers and writers. (Eric Hinderaker Religious Studies Review)
In this pioneering and provocative book, adapted from the author's Harvard dissertation, Janice Knight offers a most helpful, if controversial, corrective to one of the chief historiographical conclusions regarding American Puritanism of the first-half of the seventeenth century 'Orthodoxies in Massachusetts presents an immensely provocative and cogently argued thesis, debunking the older myth of Puritan monolith Janice Knight has shown the other strand of Puritan orthodoxy, the Sibbesian-Cottonian tradition, and how the articulated resistance of this group before, during, and after the Antinomian controversy can help to contextualize and rectify our reading of early American Puritanism. (Paul C-H Lim Westminster Theological Journal)
Knight's work is passionately written...Whether or not one has an investment in the ongoing debates about the import of New England Puritanism, Knight reminds us that New Englanders sought passionately to understand better their relationship to the divine and how to make it evident in their social relations. Orthodoxies in Massachusetts demands that we acknowledge the varieties of religious experience this search engendered. (Philip F. Gura William and Mary Quarterly)
Janice Knight has given us a provocative and elegant book that yields new understandings of Puritanism in old and New England...This is a work of intellectual and literary history of a very high order. (Mark Valeri Journal of Religion)
About the Author
Janice Knight is Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature and the College, University of Chicago.
Product details
- Publisher : Harvard University Press (September 1, 1997)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 301 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0674644883
- ISBN-13 : 978-0674644885
- Item Weight : 14.8 ounces
- Dimensions : 6.25 x 0.75 x 9.5 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#2,968,104 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #4,600 in U.S. Colonial Period History
- #15,785 in Protestantism
- #16,413 in History of Christianity (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
3.9 out of 5 stars
3.9 out of 5
5 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on February 5, 2013
Verified Purchase
6 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on August 26, 2011
Verified Purchase
I had to read this book for a seminary course. If you're not an academic, don't even try reading it. It is laborious. I am already well-versed in Separatist and Puritan history and still found it tedious. Besides this,the author's thesis is on thin ice because only one orthodoxy emerges from Knight's writing except for hair splitting and subtle differences in doctrine.
4 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on June 1, 2018
Janice Knight teaches English at the University of Chicago.
This book challenges what Knight believes is a monolithic scholarly view of Puritanism in the seventeenth century. Knight essentially argues that there were two kinds of Puritans.
Knight occasionally calls the first kind of Puritans the “legalists.” They appealed to logic rather than emotion and stressed God’s sovereignty more than God’s grace. They gave stern “jeremiads” that threatened people with God’s wrath if they did not stay on the straight-and-narrow. For them, God’s covenant was conditional: one has to stay on the straight-and-narrow to be saved. Knight frequently refers to them as “preparationists”: they exhorted people to prepare themselves spiritually for saving faith and grace by cleansing themselves of sin and doing what is right, and they saw Christian living as a gradual, uphill process. People who followed them often were uncertain if they arrived. Exemplars of this line of Puritan thinking include William Ames and Thomas Hooker. John Winthrop, the Puritan leader in America, leaned towards this school.
Knight often refers to the second kind of Puritans as “spiritists.” They emphasized God’s love and grace in transforming and regenerating people, enabling them to believe. God’s covenant was more of a testament and a promise, in their eyes: God regenerated Christians and would uphold them until the end. Emotion and mystical union with Christ played a greater role in their sermons and outlook. Adherents to this line of thinking included Richard Sibbes and John Cotton. Knight also argues that Jonathan Edwards was an heir to the spiritist Puritan outlook. It was controversial on account of its association with the antinomians in seventeenth century New England.
You might think that the “legalists” were exclusive and conservative, whereas the “spiritists” were inclusive and liberal. But that was not entirely the case, in Knight’s picture. The legalists supported including the grandchildren of believers as members of the church, even if their parents displayed no evidence of personal conversion. The heirs of the spiritists, by contrast, saw that as abhorrent: they wanted the church to be a holy community of regenerated people, however small the community might be.
Knight draws other distinctions between the legalists and the spiritists:
—-The legalists included a lot of application in their sermons. The spiritists preferred to linger in the text of Scripture.
—-The legalists had a practical view of love of neighbor. They acknowledged that people should love themselves, and exhorted people to prioritize loving their family over others. The spiritists had more of an emotional, effusive picture of love: the Christian felt affection towards others, and the truly regenerate person would be full of love and pour it out to everyone he or she encountered.
—-The legalists thought that God could be effective in a person’s spiritual growth even if that person read a sermon at home. The spiritists thought that there was greater power in gathering with other Christians to hear the Word preached. You would think that the spiritists had a stronger view of the church and the clergy than the legalists, but the situation was messier than that. The legalists regarded ministers as authorities, whereas the spiritists did not as much, stressing instead the community of the saints.
—-The legalists did not focus on conversion testimonies. The spiritists did, thinking they could encourage and foster community and mutual identification within the body of Christ.
—-The legalists were tribalistic, in that they believed in the importance of the Puritan community in North America. Some scholars have argued that the legalists paved the way for Manifest Destiny. The spiritists, by contrast, encouraged Christians to see themselves as part of a worldwide body of believers.
—-Some scholars have argued that the legalists supported capitalism and financial success. The spiritists, by contrast, saw the pursuit of wealth as a possible hindrance in one’s relationship with God and preferred a more “primitive” society.
—-The legalists were bolder and more open in their dissent from the establishment English church, so they were eager to start anew in North America. The spiritists tended to be discrete about their dissent, rose in the ranks of the establishment English church, and were reluctant to leave their congregations in England to come to North America.
—-The legalists were pessimistic and stressed God’s wrath. The spiritists had an optimistic postmillennial perspective: God was at work in history, drawing closer to creation, and the millennium would precede Christ’s second coming.
Knight engages in some psychologizing of the legalists and spiritists. The spiritists were often lucky in life, gaining the renown and the position that they sought. The legalists were not as successful in life. Some of them were itinerant preachers rather than having an actual ministerial position. The spiritists, Knight seems to imply, naturally transferred their life experiences onto their theology: they saw themselves as blessed and assured of salvation. For the legalists, by contrast, the spiritual life was more of an uncertain, uphill journey.
Knight’s thesis has been controversial. My suspicion is that some scholars have wondered if Puritans can be divided into such neat categories. Knight herself acknowledges places where the distinction can get rather messy:
—-Did the preparationists reject the Calvinist idea that God needed to regenerate a person for that person to believe? Indeed, some have accused the preparationists of Pelagianism, Arminianism, or semi-Arminianism. Knight is rather unclear here. She states that the preparationists did believe that God made the first move, but they simply did not emphasize that, stressing human effort and activity instead. At other times, though, Knight seems to portray the preparationists as thinking that people needed to muster up their own faith and clean themselves up before God could save and dwell in them.
—-Knight cites an example of a legalist who was quite mystical in his private journals, even though he did not bring that mysticism into his public sermons.
Here are other possible areas of messiness, in my estimation (not that I am Knight’s peer on this subject, by a long shot):
—-Did not the optimistic postmillennial view that Knight associates with the spiritists contain the tribalism that Knight associates with the legalists? The Puritan settlement in North America was deemed to be a crucial part of God’s positive work in history, culminating in the millennium.
—-Conversion testimonies and stress on spiritual transformation, which Knight associates with the spiritists, could coincide with the spiritual insecurity and fear of hell that Knight associates with the legalists. People could look at their lives and see no evident powerful spiritual experiences or much evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, and they could despair that they are unsaved and on their way to hell.
—-I am slowly going through Sibbes’ “The Bruised Reed,” and he does depict spiritual growth as a process: God does not transform a person all at once, but a person grows gradually. Maybe he did not portray the spiritual life as an uphill, uncertain journey, but there was an element of gradualism in his conception of it.
—-I sometimes got the impression in reading Knight that the preparationists believed that people should prepare themselves for an intense mystical experience, which may imply that mysticism played some role in their thought.
There may have been more messiness and overlap between the two schools of Puritan thought than Knight presents. At the same time, she does well to identify tensions within Puritan thought: for instance, a belief in God’s unconditional election of the Christian, co-existing with conditionalism and uncertainty about whether one is saved. And different Puritan thinkers probably had different emphases, as some stressed God’s grace and love, whereas others focused on God’s judgment.
From my personal perspective, what is ironic is this: you would expect me to sympathize more with the spiritists than the legalists. I crave God’s love and grace and detest spiritual uncertainty. And yet, there is a strong part of me that gravitates more towards the legalists, as Knight presents them. The legalists offered a practical, realistic picture of love, in contrast to the nebulous, touchy-feely, “love everybody” approach of the spiritists; I find the same sort of distinction between Christians today, as the conservative “fire-and-brimstone” types present a practical picture of love, whereas the “God-loves-you” free grace types are more touchy-feely and emphasize extroversion. The former appears more attainable to me, as one who has Asperger’s and struggles socially. Yet, I will admit that Jonathan Edwards had beautiful things to say about the community of saints, and how the saints mutually glorify one another before God, as the stars are beautiful when they shine together.
This book challenges what Knight believes is a monolithic scholarly view of Puritanism in the seventeenth century. Knight essentially argues that there were two kinds of Puritans.
Knight occasionally calls the first kind of Puritans the “legalists.” They appealed to logic rather than emotion and stressed God’s sovereignty more than God’s grace. They gave stern “jeremiads” that threatened people with God’s wrath if they did not stay on the straight-and-narrow. For them, God’s covenant was conditional: one has to stay on the straight-and-narrow to be saved. Knight frequently refers to them as “preparationists”: they exhorted people to prepare themselves spiritually for saving faith and grace by cleansing themselves of sin and doing what is right, and they saw Christian living as a gradual, uphill process. People who followed them often were uncertain if they arrived. Exemplars of this line of Puritan thinking include William Ames and Thomas Hooker. John Winthrop, the Puritan leader in America, leaned towards this school.
Knight often refers to the second kind of Puritans as “spiritists.” They emphasized God’s love and grace in transforming and regenerating people, enabling them to believe. God’s covenant was more of a testament and a promise, in their eyes: God regenerated Christians and would uphold them until the end. Emotion and mystical union with Christ played a greater role in their sermons and outlook. Adherents to this line of thinking included Richard Sibbes and John Cotton. Knight also argues that Jonathan Edwards was an heir to the spiritist Puritan outlook. It was controversial on account of its association with the antinomians in seventeenth century New England.
You might think that the “legalists” were exclusive and conservative, whereas the “spiritists” were inclusive and liberal. But that was not entirely the case, in Knight’s picture. The legalists supported including the grandchildren of believers as members of the church, even if their parents displayed no evidence of personal conversion. The heirs of the spiritists, by contrast, saw that as abhorrent: they wanted the church to be a holy community of regenerated people, however small the community might be.
Knight draws other distinctions between the legalists and the spiritists:
—-The legalists included a lot of application in their sermons. The spiritists preferred to linger in the text of Scripture.
—-The legalists had a practical view of love of neighbor. They acknowledged that people should love themselves, and exhorted people to prioritize loving their family over others. The spiritists had more of an emotional, effusive picture of love: the Christian felt affection towards others, and the truly regenerate person would be full of love and pour it out to everyone he or she encountered.
—-The legalists thought that God could be effective in a person’s spiritual growth even if that person read a sermon at home. The spiritists thought that there was greater power in gathering with other Christians to hear the Word preached. You would think that the spiritists had a stronger view of the church and the clergy than the legalists, but the situation was messier than that. The legalists regarded ministers as authorities, whereas the spiritists did not as much, stressing instead the community of the saints.
—-The legalists did not focus on conversion testimonies. The spiritists did, thinking they could encourage and foster community and mutual identification within the body of Christ.
—-The legalists were tribalistic, in that they believed in the importance of the Puritan community in North America. Some scholars have argued that the legalists paved the way for Manifest Destiny. The spiritists, by contrast, encouraged Christians to see themselves as part of a worldwide body of believers.
—-Some scholars have argued that the legalists supported capitalism and financial success. The spiritists, by contrast, saw the pursuit of wealth as a possible hindrance in one’s relationship with God and preferred a more “primitive” society.
—-The legalists were bolder and more open in their dissent from the establishment English church, so they were eager to start anew in North America. The spiritists tended to be discrete about their dissent, rose in the ranks of the establishment English church, and were reluctant to leave their congregations in England to come to North America.
—-The legalists were pessimistic and stressed God’s wrath. The spiritists had an optimistic postmillennial perspective: God was at work in history, drawing closer to creation, and the millennium would precede Christ’s second coming.
Knight engages in some psychologizing of the legalists and spiritists. The spiritists were often lucky in life, gaining the renown and the position that they sought. The legalists were not as successful in life. Some of them were itinerant preachers rather than having an actual ministerial position. The spiritists, Knight seems to imply, naturally transferred their life experiences onto their theology: they saw themselves as blessed and assured of salvation. For the legalists, by contrast, the spiritual life was more of an uncertain, uphill journey.
Knight’s thesis has been controversial. My suspicion is that some scholars have wondered if Puritans can be divided into such neat categories. Knight herself acknowledges places where the distinction can get rather messy:
—-Did the preparationists reject the Calvinist idea that God needed to regenerate a person for that person to believe? Indeed, some have accused the preparationists of Pelagianism, Arminianism, or semi-Arminianism. Knight is rather unclear here. She states that the preparationists did believe that God made the first move, but they simply did not emphasize that, stressing human effort and activity instead. At other times, though, Knight seems to portray the preparationists as thinking that people needed to muster up their own faith and clean themselves up before God could save and dwell in them.
—-Knight cites an example of a legalist who was quite mystical in his private journals, even though he did not bring that mysticism into his public sermons.
Here are other possible areas of messiness, in my estimation (not that I am Knight’s peer on this subject, by a long shot):
—-Did not the optimistic postmillennial view that Knight associates with the spiritists contain the tribalism that Knight associates with the legalists? The Puritan settlement in North America was deemed to be a crucial part of God’s positive work in history, culminating in the millennium.
—-Conversion testimonies and stress on spiritual transformation, which Knight associates with the spiritists, could coincide with the spiritual insecurity and fear of hell that Knight associates with the legalists. People could look at their lives and see no evident powerful spiritual experiences or much evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, and they could despair that they are unsaved and on their way to hell.
—-I am slowly going through Sibbes’ “The Bruised Reed,” and he does depict spiritual growth as a process: God does not transform a person all at once, but a person grows gradually. Maybe he did not portray the spiritual life as an uphill, uncertain journey, but there was an element of gradualism in his conception of it.
—-I sometimes got the impression in reading Knight that the preparationists believed that people should prepare themselves for an intense mystical experience, which may imply that mysticism played some role in their thought.
There may have been more messiness and overlap between the two schools of Puritan thought than Knight presents. At the same time, she does well to identify tensions within Puritan thought: for instance, a belief in God’s unconditional election of the Christian, co-existing with conditionalism and uncertainty about whether one is saved. And different Puritan thinkers probably had different emphases, as some stressed God’s grace and love, whereas others focused on God’s judgment.
From my personal perspective, what is ironic is this: you would expect me to sympathize more with the spiritists than the legalists. I crave God’s love and grace and detest spiritual uncertainty. And yet, there is a strong part of me that gravitates more towards the legalists, as Knight presents them. The legalists offered a practical, realistic picture of love, in contrast to the nebulous, touchy-feely, “love everybody” approach of the spiritists; I find the same sort of distinction between Christians today, as the conservative “fire-and-brimstone” types present a practical picture of love, whereas the “God-loves-you” free grace types are more touchy-feely and emphasize extroversion. The former appears more attainable to me, as one who has Asperger’s and struggles socially. Yet, I will admit that Jonathan Edwards had beautiful things to say about the community of saints, and how the saints mutually glorify one another before God, as the stars are beautiful when they shine together.
2 people found this helpful
Report abuse
