1
Anne Hutchinson: Heroine or Heretic?
Introduction
The trial of Anne Hutchinson, in 1637, stands as a pivotal moment in early American
history. While this trial is generally marked by the collision of opposing viewpoints on religious
freedom, gender roles, and the boundaries of dissent, the trial of Anne Hutchinson was truly a
spiritual battle, wherein an attempt to divide God’s people and destroy the idea of absolute truth
was made. As a woman who challenged the religious, social, and political norms of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony, Hutchinson’s case has been analyzed from multiple perspectives,
each one shedding light on distinct aspects of the conflict. For instance, from the perspective of
the Puritan leadership, Hutchinson was a divisive heretic who threatened the religious and social
order of their community. The colony's leaders, such as Governor John Winthrop, believed that
Hutchinson's theological views, particularly her emphasis on personal revelation and the
"covenant of grace," were extremely dangerous doctrines.
Furthermore, they saw her as a disruptive force that could lead to chaos within the
colony, which they were determined to prevent. On the other hand, Hutchinson's supporters, both
during her time and among many today, argue that her trial was an unjust suppression of
religious dissent. They view her as a pioneer of religious freedom and individual conscience. But
is this the case? Using Scripture as a lens, this essay will explore these various interpretations of
Hutchinson’s trial, focusing specifically on whether or not Anne Hutchinson and the Puritan
leaders’ actions align with Biblical principles. By examining these opposing views, through the
2
lens of the Bible, the hope is to gain a deeper understanding of Anne Hutchinson’s legacy, as
well as determine whether Ms. Hutchinson was a heroine or a heretic.
Different Doctrines
The conflict that led to Anne Hutchinson’s trial was nothing new to her day and,
unfortunately, it is one that still carries on today. Anne was accusing ministers of “harboring a
belief in salvation by works rather than the ‘free grace’ of God, a serious charge nearly akin to
calling them secret Catholics.”1 This accusation was based on her interpretation of the Puritan
leaders’ emphasis on outward obedience and moral behavior as evidence of one’s election by
God. Hutchinson was a proponent of the "covenant of grace.” She believed that salvation was not
evidenced by good works or external behavior but, rather, by an inner experience of God's grace.
Moreover, Anne felt that no connection existed between sanctification and justification, and that
there were no visible signs that an individual was saved. Rather, “God placed the Holy Spirit
inside the saved, and with fierce introspection people could detect whether it lived within them.”2
This view was central to her theology and was a key point of contention between her and the
Puritan authorities. She believed that salvation was entirely a result of God's grace, given freely
and not based on human actions or merits. Thus, she argued that the Puritan ministers' insistence
on strict moral conduct and adherence to church rules suggested that they were promoting a
"covenant of works"—the idea that one's actions can earn their salvation. But was this true? In
short, no it was not.
While the Puritan ministers did hold to the idea that individuals could prepare themselves
for God’s grace through pious behavior, otherwise known as “preparationism,” they did not
1 Connolly, Michael J., “The Problem With Anne Hutchinson,” Imaginative Conservative,
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/10/problem-anne-hutchinson-michael-connolly.html.
2 Ibid.
3
believe that these actions could directly earn salvation.3 Rather, they taught that such preparation
was necessary for receiving God's grace. Puritan ministers emphasized the importance of
outward signs of a godly life as evidence of God’s election.4 While Hutchinson viewed this
emphasis on preparation as a works-based-righteousness, the Puritan leaders did not believe in
salvation by works. The Puritans adhered to a strict Reformed theology, which emphasizes
salvation by grace through faith alone. Though they did believe that good works were the
necessary fruit of genuine faith, they did not hold that these good works were the cause of God’s
election. It was this tension, a tension between a faith evidenced by good works and a faith
simply believed upon by the one who claims it, that led to the events that brought about the
infamous trial of Anne Hutchinson.
Context is Key
Though widely assumed, it was not just a difference in beliefs or some ego-driven
insecurity that forced the Puritan leaders to bring Mrs. Hutchinson before the courts. Anne
Hutchinson was welcomed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony with open arms. This, in turn,
meant that she was also accepted into their church and way of life. However, Hutchinson brought
with her “a doctrine which was absolutely inconsistent with the principles upon which the colony
had been founded […] immediate personal communion with the Holy Ghost.”5 This doctrine
taught that each individual could receive direct revelation from God, bypassing the holy words of
3 Winship, Michael P., The Times and Trials of Anne Hutchinson: Puritans Divided, (Lawrence, Kansas:
University Press of Kansas, 2005).
4 Britannica, “Puritanism,” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Puritanism.
5 Morgan, E.S., “The Case Against Anne Hutchinson,” New England Quarterly, Jan 1, 1937,
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1290911774?_oafollow=false&accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly
%20Journals&imgSeq=3.
4
Scripture. This view also held that there was no outward expression of one’s faith. These views
directly opposed the views of Scripture. Even worse, they remove the Bible altogether.
Furthermore, Anne began to affirm and even teach this new theology to others within the
community. To accept this theology, the Puritans would have had to abandon the very foundation
upon which their faith stood. The issue the Puritans had was not with a new idea, it was with a
false doctrine that claimed mere men could receive greater truths than that which was revealed to
them through the final revelation of God—The Holy Bible.
In Light of Scripture
While the New Testament teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works
(Ephesians 2:8-9, English Standard Version), it also emphasizes that true faith will naturally
produce good works as evidence of genuine conversion (James 2:14-26). Anne Hutchinson fell
captive to an ideology that opposes this truth. Furthermore, rather than seeking to make peace
with her brothers (Matthew 5:9, 23-24), Hutchinson began to slander the leaders of her
community due to her differing views. In fact, she saw fit to hold a women’s group at her home,
spreading her views and causing division among believers. The scriptures are abundantly clear
about this kind of behavior: “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an
abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart
that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out
lies, and one who sows discord among brothers” (Proverbs 6:16-19). It would appear that Mrs.
Hutchinson was guilty of almost all of these “abominations.” Sowing discord, or causing
division among people, lying and plotting, all of this is listed among the things that God detests.
Believers are warned to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary
5
to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Romans 16:17). These verses emphasize
the seriousness with which the Bible treats divisiveness and rebellion, thus giving credence to the
Puritan leaders and their actions regarding Anne’s behavior.
Conclusion
In summary, much of the research and reports that cover this topic seem to have a slant
toward modern ideologies. Therefore, Anne Hutchinson’s actions are seen as acts of liberation,
not rebellion. She is held up and praised as a hero, alongside individuals like Martin Luther
King, Rosa Parks, and even Christ! And, while yes, the fight for freedom of religion and gender
equality, as well as others can be seen in this story from American history, today’s post-modern
worldview does not consider the implications of her actions in light of Scripture, and in the
context of her day. The idea that the Puritan leaders were archaic, and Anne Hutchinson was a
revolutionist they intended to suppress seems far more common than true. After looking through
the details of this trial, the Puritan beliefs, and Mrs. Hutchinson’s actions, in comparison with the
words of Scripture, it seems her actions were those of a rebel rather than a revolutionist.
The Puritan leaders believed that Hutchinson’s teachings were not only divisive, but they
were heretical, particularly her rejection of the emphasis on outward works as evidence of faith.
The Bible warns against false teachers who promote doctrines contrary to the gospel (2 Peter
2:1). Scripture also strongly condemns divisive behavior, as seen in passages like Titus 3:10-11,
where divisive individuals are to be warned and then avoided if they persist in causing division.
Anne Hutchinson’s actions, such as holding unauthorized religious meetings and openly
challenging the teachings of the Puritan ministers, were rightly seen as divisive within this
tightly knit Puritan community. From the Puritan leaders’ perspective, her actions threatened the
7
Bibliography
E.S. Morgan. “The Case Against Anne Hutchinson.” New England Quarterly. Jan 1, 1937.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1290911774?
_oafollow=false&accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals&imgSeq=3.
Britannica. “Puritanism.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Puritanism.
Michael P. Winship. The Times and Trials of Anne Hutchinson: Puritans Divided. (Lawrence,
Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2005).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
