THE work of the founders of New England Puritanism was
not undertaken in a vacuum. While there was remarkable
agreement among the leaders on theological and ecclesiastical
issues, there were disputes from as early as 1631 when Winthrop
was obliged to visit Watertown to attempt to resolve a dispute that
was dividing the church. Soon broader and more fundamental
issues came into focus. The earliest opposition leaders were not un-
sympathetic with Puritan ideals; indeed, they had come to New
England because of them. But Puritans in England had been united
chiefly in opposition to the bishops and their demands. In New
England, with Puritans in control of a semi-independent state,
leaders believed that harmony and agreement were necessary for
survival, and those who could not or would not embrace the prac-
tical but paradoxical Puritanism that was being established in
Massachusetts were considered divisive forces. If they had not been
so outspoken, or if they had been less popular or powerful, they
might have been tolerated. Instead, their efforts to create change
resulted in the polarization and codification of increasingly
legalistic Puritan policies and doctrine. Analysis of their attacks on
orthodox New England Puritanism reveals the assumptions on
which the Puritan commonwealth rested.

The most extended critique of the new commonwealth, one that
extended over fifteen years, was made by a clergyman, Roger
Williams. He was only twenty-seven when he arrived in
Massachusetts in 1631; his wife was only wenty-one. Most of the
other ministers were much older. If Williams could not offer the
wide experience that Cotton and Hooker had, he was undeniably a
man of charm and character, and the Boston church, needing a

-65-