The way that people express their views about the same thing can show a lot about people’s beliefs and their character. Anne Bradstreet, writer of Upon the Burning of our House essentially has the same views as Jonathan Edwards, a preacher, whose most famous sermon is called, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. Both Bradstreet and Edwards have God as a very important figure in their lives, they just project their views onto the public in vastly different ways. Bradstreet views God as a forgiving and loving figure and Edwards always describes God as an angry being who will not hesitate to throw people into Hell.
When Anne Bradstreet writes, she makes it obvious that she views God as a loving being who does things for good reasons. For
…show more content…
example, in Upon the Burning of Our House Bradstreet writes, “. . . I blest His name that gave and took,/ That laid my goods now in the dust:/ Yea, so it was, and so ‘twas just./ It was His own, it was not mine/ Far be it that I should repine.
. .”(lines 14-18). Only a couple of lines into this 54 line poem Bradstreet is already saying how she knows her house burned down for a reason. She knew she could do nothing about her recently burned down house so, instead of lashing out at God, she just accepted that God had a good reason for burning her house down. She also mentions, “It was His own. . .” meaning that she knew her time on Earth was limited and that nothing was permanent so she basically owned nothing anyway, she only had the stuff she had because of God’s will. Making Bradstreet seem like a forgiving person because she believed that was God’s …show more content…
will. However, Edwards takes a different route in his sermon and paints God as an unforgiving creature who is the only reason you are still on this Earth, very different from Bradstreet. Edwards, very early in his sermon says, “They [unconverted men] are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as angry as he is with many miserable creatures. . .”(lines 4-7). Is it blatantly obvious that Edwards views god very differently. Edwards’ God is a cruel man who is always angry at the unconverted and is always wrathful. Edwards’ sermon primarily scares the audience into thinking his way. The two varying views on God proves that people can be in the same religion but have very different thoughts and that depends on the person’s character. In Upon the Burning of our House Bradstreet also says, “.
. . Yet by his gift is made thine own;/ There’s wealth enough, I need no more. . .”(lines 50-51). By saying this she is expressing her belief that the only reason that she had anything was because of God and that even though she had lost most of her possessions and, presumably, most of her money she still did not care. She knew that there was more money in the world and she thought that it did not matter if that money was in her possession or God’s. Anne Bradstreet knew that everything on Earth was temporary so she did not mind the fact that she had lost her possessions, for she could get new ones and she could get more money. The fact that she lost what she had previously called home did not bother her much because she knew that she could easily get a new place to call home. Bradstreet believed that the only eternal thing was Heaven, Edwards believed it was Hell. Edwards, on the other hand, says God has an, “. . .everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of the Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery”(lines 75-77). Edwards is telling people that if they believe in God but are not converted, or if they do not believe in God, that they would face eternal damnation in Hell. Edwards made people afraid of invoking God’s wrath, he told people that God was always angry at them. Bradstreet does the complete
opposite for her God is forgiving and does not make people suffer eternal damnation. As stated, both Anne Bradstreet and Jonathan Edwards have the same religion but they view God in very different ways. Bradstreet’s God is a nice forgiving being and Edwards’ God is happy to throw people in Hell. These two people are a good example of how the same thing, in this case God, can motivate people in entirely different ways. Everything depends on the simplicity of human emotion.
One of the major differences in Bradstreet and Edwards’ writing styles is how angry and demanding Edwards’ works are compared to the logical and rather positive works of Bradstreet. Bradstreet said, “I prize thy love more than the whole mines of gold…” (116, Line 5), this renders the image of Bradstreet relying on love more than money because love isn’t superficial, and this demenstrates the logical side of her writing. When it came to “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, the writing style is angry, for example when Edwards said, “So that, thus it is that natural men… they have deserved the fiery pit.” (126). Not only does this exhibit his vextation and absurdity, but it also shows a side of religion that differs from Anne Bradstreet’s. Edwards hates the unconverted man, and he believes that if you aren’t converted, that you anger God and he will send you to hell. Bradstreet on the other side believes that if those who worship God, he will always be there to assist them, even if they aren’t completely converted, which is odd for two converted Puritans to differ on these
Often when children are spoiled, they develop a sense of superiority to those around them. However, after leaving the closed environment of a household, the need for authority and supremacy can create unintended consequences imbedded with sorrow. The fallout from this misfortune is seen in “Why I Live at the P.O.” in the family quarrel that ensues due to the return of Stella-Rondo. Throughout the narration, the author asserts that because, the world is apathetic to one’s dilemmas, a shielded and pampered upbringing can only hamper personal development. Through the denial of truth that the family exhibits in attempts to improve relations and through the jealousy that Sister experiences as inferior to Stella-Rondo, the source of hindered maturity is exemplified.
Anne Bradstreet and Jonathan Edwards lived during a period in time where religion was the basis and foundation of everyday life. Bradstreet and Edwards were both raised in prominent, wealthy, and educated families. Both were extremely intelligent and shared similar religious beliefs. However, the way in which each of them brought forth those beliefs was vastly different.
Bradstreet also made it appoint to compare the sudden death of her grandchild to nature stating, “But plants new set to be eradicate, / And buds new blown to have so short a date, / Is by His hands alone that guides nature and fate”( lines 12-14). Conversely, Edward describes his loss of his child as a honor from God. Taylor states, “ Lord take’t. I thank Thee, Thou tak’st ought of mine: / It is my pledge in glory, part of me / Is now in it, Lord glorified with Thee” revealing his honor to have his child sitting with the lord (Edward lines 28-30). Both authors took their faith into great consideration when speaking of the loss of a family
On July 8, 1741 Congregational minister, John Edwards, delivered a sermon entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” before a Massachusetts congregation in order to dismiss some of the colonist’s belief that hell is not real. Edwards’s objective is to abolish any doubts against god and hell that the colonists have. He uses strategies such as anaphora, figurative language, polysyndeton, all while instilling a feeling of angst in his audience through his tone.
It dictated most of her way of living. She writes about her many struggles between her “flesh” and “the Spirit”. She is honest about sometimes feeling inadequate and wanting to digress away from God’sS way. She includes a constant tension between her selfish thoughts and what she know is the best path. It is not so much a battle between personal beliefs and what one is expected to do. Rather it is a battle between what one is doing and what one already knows is the best route in thinking and living. Bradstreet’s family moved from England to the New England in order to follow this movement of Puritans creating a new life in accordance to the church (White, p.103). So she was well aware of Christian principles and very familiar with the Bible. In Some Verses upon the Burning of Our House she talks mostly about the many vanities of this world and that one should focus on things that are eternal. She
In summarization, Edwards has shown in history that he is very convincing to others about his opinions and ideas. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is one of the best examples of this, because all the literary devices he uses, and all of the means of persuasion, are very easily detected by the audience, and make it very easy for the audience to become afraid, and take Edwards’s side in order to feel safe. Edwards’s use of loaded language, vivid imagery, and sentence style all contribute to conveying the ideas of fear in the audience. These ideas of fear persuade the audience to become better Puritans, or to convert altogether.
Anne Bradstreet loves her children so much because she raised them all with pain and care. Bradstreet often talks about her children loving people, and people loving them, “And with her mate flew out of sight” (14) and out of her reach so she can not watch over them. Bradstreet’s strong Puritan heritage gives her unquestionable belief that God is watching over her children for her, and her children are watching for God. With this relationship between her and God, Anne Bradstreet accepts the departure of her children. In this poem Anne Bradstreet talks about success, “Coupled with mate loving and true” (23) this is Bradstreet’s idea of success for her children in this poem. Anne Bradstreet’s idea of success is so much more than just this line, in the fact that she wants her children to be educated, and live good productive Christian lives. All of these things are implied in the poem as simple as finding a mate and “flying” off.
He chastised his congregation repeatedly in high hopes that they will turn away from their sinful ways. His Puritan beliefs were the impetus force behind his message. The Puritans emphasized the “covenant of works”, which was in the control of humans, and the “covenant of grace”, which was in God 's power to give. (Covenant of grace). Edwards believed that mankind could save itself from damnation depending on the way that they lived. Basically, it is man’s control to save himself of certain damnation. He believed God 's grace could possibly be limited. He proposed a belief that God is judgmental and angry. Edwards ' belief in God was that He was ready to throw people into hell because of all of their unrepentant sins. Edwards used his sermon to give proof to the people that they were only worthy of hell and God 's grace kept the people from being tossed into the Lake of fire. “There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning, that would presently ignite and burst into flames of hell fire, if it were not for God 's restraints. “There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell”(Edwards 432). Edwards believed man was so dishonorable that hell was waiting for him. He preached that God was showing grace and mercy to people or otherwise mankind would be destroyed by hell 's
Bradstreet’s last learned lesson is her wealth does not come from the things she gains on earth but her true wealth lies in heaven. She begins Stanzas 37-42 rebuking her thoughts of what will no longer take place in her ash filled home. Furthermore, Bradstreet gives her depiction of the “heavenly” place in Stanzas 43-48; which is built on permanent grounds and consist of expensive furniture all financed by God. In the last Stanzas of the poem Bradstreet begins focusing on the place where wealth is defined:
The extreme crisis that Bradstreet goes through in losing her house and of her possessions would be detrimental to any human being. The content in this poem reflects the doubts, thought process, and battle Bradstreet had with her faith during this crisis. An example of Bradstreet showing her grief throughout the poem would be as followed: “Then, coming out, beheld a space/The flame consume my dwelling place/and when I could no longer look,/I blest His name that gave and took,” (Bradstreet 11-14). This quote exemplifies Bradstreet’s loss especially with the line “and when I could no longer look” (14). This quote indicates Bradstreet’s immense grief to the point where her eyes cannot bare to look at what causes her pain. Another example of the grief Bradstreet is going through is as followed: “Here stood that trunk, and there that chest,/There lay that store I...
...e from her love to the world. Perhaps, she believed that in this love of her, she became God-like and God thus punishes her. Nevertheless, the presence of God in her poems is more than clear. Perhaps, it was due to religious beliefs that she though that it was wrong to feel too strong feelings to world and she considered herself to be a sinner who deserves punishment. Today, there are few followers of Bradstreet, but she, her ideas and her thoughts about sufferings still remain in modern books.
The speaker starts sadly with a little anger, but sooner after that she changes her tone to accept God’s will. She believes that he is not going to be alone because he will meet the other deceased in the eternal life. She proclaims: “ Three flowers, two scarcely blown, the last i’th’ bud, / Cropped by th’ Almighty’s hand; yet is He good” (3-4). She is happy because her grandchildren will be more secure in heaven under the grace of God. She begins to accept God’s will: “Such was His [God] will, but why, let’s not dispute” (6). She knows it is a sin to interfere and complain about God’s plan for the universe. Thus, she reforms her hypocrisy and dissatisfaction and considers God to be “merciful as well as just”
In “Upon the Burning of Our House,” Anne Bradstreet demonstrates her devastation towards the loss of her possessions that had been burned, but finds comfort in her belief of God, ultimately indicating her faith in God even though He placed this loss upon her. Anne Bradstreet, a Puritan in the Massachusetts colony, writes about a time in her life when her dwelling place got burned down. Bradstreet writes, “I blest His Name that gave and took / That layd my goods now in the dust” (Bradstreet 14-15). Bradstreet’s belongings and house were valuable to her because of the irreplaceable memories behind them, but they were turned “into dust” in a house fire. Although Bradstreet is aware that God has put her in this position she “[blesses] His name”
She believes God will provide as long as people obey his word, and can take away what he gave because it is his right. This poem describes a house burning down in the middle of the night, causing the woman to lose all her possessions. After she is left with the burnt shell of her home, she asks herself what she could have done wrong to have God take away what he’d previously given her. “And, when I could no longer look, I blest his Name that gave and took; that laid my goods now in the dust: yes, so it was, and so 'twas just. It was his own: it was not mine” (page 141).