1. Walker, Williston, The Creeds and Platforms of Conqregationalism (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1960). p. 188Google Scholar; Mather, Cotton, Maanalia Christi Americana (London, 1702), 5:39;Google ScholarWinthrop, John, Winthrop's Journal History of New England. ed. Hosmer, J. K. (New York: Charles Scrihner's Sons, 1908), 2:138–139.Google Scholar 274, 278–279. See also Felt, Joseph B.. The Ecclesiastical History of New England (Boston: Congregational Library Association. 1855), 1: 574Google Scholar; Fiske, JohnThe Beginnings of New England (Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1892), p. 177Google Scholar: Palfrey, John G., History of New England (Boston: Little. Brown, 1889), 2: 185–186.Google Scholar Although historian James Truolow Adams, insisting that the “Cambridge Platform …provided that the full power of the state should be used to enforce obedience and conformity to the priesthood” (The Founding of New England [Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1921, p. 256),Google Scholar adopted an extreme view on the relationship between elders and the magistrates, and Perry Miller likewise tended to constrict the complex events surrounding the synod by stating that the Platform was written more for an English than a domestic audience (The New England Mind: From Colony to Province [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953”, p. 6),Google Scholar at least one recent commentator on the Cambridge Platform tended to weigh the causes more equally. Darrett Rutman (Winthrop's Boston: Portrait of a Puritan Town 1630–1649 [Williamsburg: The Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1965], p. 262) noted the problems created by events in England and local dissension while maintaining that the primary purpose of the Platform was to deal with these difficulties by institutionalizing Bay Colony practices. For the arguments of those opposed to calling the synod see “Exceptions to Some things in the Synod at Cambridge 1649” (Boston Public Library, Cotton Papers, III-I) and a set of replies to the churches who objected to summoning the synod in the Richard Mather MSS (American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts).

2. Cotton, John, The Way of the Congregational Churches Cleared (London, 1648),Google Scholar reprinted in Ziff, Larzer, ed., John Cotton on the Churches of New England (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 258–259Google Scholar; Winthrop, , Journal, 2: 306Google Scholar; Hubbard, William, A General History of New England (Cambridge. 1815), p. 182Google Scholar; Adams, Brooks. The Emancipation of Massachusetts (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919)Google Scholar; James Adams, Founding of New England; Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620–1800 (New York: Har- court, Grace and Co., 1954); Seidman, Aaron, “Church and State in the Early Years of the Massachusetts Bay Colony,” New England Quarterly 18 (06 1945): 211–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarOn the same subject see Larzer Ziff, The Career of John Cotton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 103–104Google Scholar; Morgan, Edmund S., Roger Williams: The Church and the State (New York: Harcourt. Brace and World, 1967), pp. 63, 79Google Scholar; Morgan, Edmund S., Puritan Political Ideas 1558–1794 (Indianapolis: Bohbs-Merrill, 1965), p. xxxii.Google Scholar Despite regularly mentioning the separation of church and state, Morgan was forced to allow that, “The Puritan principle of… church and state did not absolve the state from its covenaut-imposed responsibility for the church” (Roger Williams, p. 84) and its obligation to protect true religion (Puritan Political Ideas, p. xxxii). Thus, he was forced to concede the presence of something he labeled a “religious stewardship” in the colony (ibid., p. xxvi).

3. Hall, David D., The Faithful Shepherd: A History of the New England Ministry in the Seventeenth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1972), pp. 121–122.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., p. 125.

5. Ibid., p. 228.

6. Ibid., p. 286.

7. Ibid., pp. 130, 136, 145, 227–228.

8. There are several examples of ministerial counsel and participation in affairs of state that are occasionally cited as examples of viable clerical power, but the ministers intervened almost entirely by presenting advice on an ad hoc basis and, more important, the secular anthorities failed in most cases to heed their counsel. For example, in the case of clerical intervention in a 1632 dispute between Governor Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, the ministers joined the fray on the side of Dudley rather than making common cause with the colony's leading official. This, however, is not genuine evidence of ministerial opposition to secular power, for while clerical support for Dudley might have indicated a number of things, ministerial parity with the civil government was not one of them. It was surely true, at this point in the history of the holy commonwealth, that most ministers and colonists did not want to see the state telling any church what to do, but no matter what most of the ministers and colonists wanted or said they wanted, the situation that developed did not reflect their expressed desires. This was obvious by the time of the Watertown tax protest in 1634. The minister of Watertown, at least one elder and possibly several other persons publicly objected to the payment of certain levies. While this might seem to be another example of clerical resistance to the state, the punishment of the protesters indicated the real distribution of power in the colony (Winthrop, , Journal, 1:74).Google Scholar In a similar vein, John Eliot surely expressed ministerial dissatisfaction when he condemned the manner in which the magistrates treated with the Indians in 1634, but shortly thereafter, the magistrates ordered a ministerial group to dispel him of his erroneous views, and Eliot recanted (ibid., p. 142). Secular dominance was even more apparent in the dispute over primary jurisdiction. In the atmosphere generated by the Antinomian crisis, the churches voluntarily relinquished their claim on the prior right to try offenders against secular and ecclesiastical authority. Three years later when they asked to have it reinstated, their request was refused. In regard to this, one advocate of the existence of clerical power maintained the churches had a “give-and-take in their dealings with the magistrates, for occasionally the government deferred to a church, allowing it to punish someone first” (Hall, p. 135, italics mine). The phrase “give-and take” denoted a measure of equality, but certainly the government occasionally deferring and allowing the church to punish an offender first was not an indication cf parity but of civil dominance.

9. Cassedy, James H., Demography in Early America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), pp. 29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haskins, George L., Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts (New YorkMacmillan, 1960), p. 63Google Scholar; Morgan, Royer Williams, p. 67. The value of the meetings was further restricted by the suspicion on the part of many that they would evolve into a coercive body (Scholz, Robert, “The Reverend Elders: Faith, Fellowship, and Politics in the Ministerial Community of Massachusetts Bay, 1630–1710,” Ph.D. dies., University of Minnesota, 1966, pp. 3–4)Google Scholar; Shurtleff, N. B., ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay In New England (Boston: William White, 1853–1855), 1:142–43Google Scholar (hereafter RMB). See also Ziff, John Cotton, passim; Winthrop, , Journal, 1:62.Google Scholar

10. RMB, 1:160–161.

11. Ibid., p. 168.

12. Winthrop, , Journal, 1:203.Google Scholar There can be little doubt that by the time of the Antinomian crisis, the state dominated the colony's clerics. In the session of the General Court held in March 1637, the civil officials began by reaffirming their support for John Wilson, pastor of the Boston church. “The ministers”, Winthrop explained, “being called to give advice about the authority of the court in things coneerning the churches, etc., did all agree of these two things: 1. That no member of the court ought to be publicly questioned by a church for any speech in the court, without the license of the court⃜ The second thing was, that, in all such heresies or errors of any church members as are manifest and dangerous to the state, the court may proceed without tarrying for the church” (ibid., p. 210). See also ibid., pp. 210–211, 256–257; Winthrop Papers (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1943), 3:505–507Google Scholar; Hall, pp. 91–92, 135.

13. “Conference of the Elders of Massachusetts With the Rev. Robert Lenthail, of Weymouth, Held at Dorchester, Feb. 1, 1639,” The Congregational Quarterly 19 (04 1877): 232–233Google Scholar; Winthrop, , Journal, 1: 292–293.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., pp. 236–248, 293: RMB, 1:252: Winthron, . Journal. 1:293.Google Scholar

15. “Conference of the Elders” pp. 233–234; RMB. 1: 252. 254; Winthrop, , Journal, 1: 203Google Scholar; Lechford, Thomas. Plain Dealing or News From New England (London, 1642), p. 22.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., pp. 53–54; Winthrop, , Journal. 1:326–327, 2:22–23;Google Scholar Massachusetts Archives (Eeclesiastical), State House, Boston, Massachusetts, 10:26–30. Many other examnlcs can be found of civil control of ecclesiastical matters. See Winthrop, . Journal, 1: 331,Google Scholar 2:19–20, 46–48; RMB, 1:274–275.Google Scholar See also Morgan, , Roger Williams, pp. 75–76Google Scholar and Puritan Political Ideas, p. xxv.

17. Lechford, p. 14. For additional examples of how dependent the clergy had become on civil authorities by this time see Shepherd, Thomas, Subjection to Christ in all His Ordinances and Appointments in Works of Thomas Shepherd (Boston: Doctrinal Book and Tract Society, 1853), 3:340, 342Google Scholar; RMB, 1:240–241.Google Scholar Because so many were excluded from the churches, the ministers were forced to ask for a law to regulate those excommunicate for over six months. The General Court responded affirmatively to the clerical request for legislation, but the following year, the civil authorities had second thoughts about their action and despite clerical opposition they repealed the law in what was only one more example of civil supremacy, (ibid., p. 272; Hall, p. 134).

18. Mather, , Magnalia, 3:143–148Google Scholar; Winthrop, , Journal, 2:138–139.Google Scholar The term “presbyterian” is not used in the hard denominational sense, but instead cover a spectrum of believers with a wide rango of opinions on the nature of church government.

19. Walker, p. 138.

20. For a complete discussion of the nature of the restrictions on baptism and membership see Morgan, Edmund S., Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965), pp. 129–138.Google Scholar

21. Records of the First Church at Dorchester in New England 1636–1734 (Boston: George H. Ellis, 1871), p. ivGoogle Scholar; “Letter of Samuel Fuller to Governor William Bradford, June 28, 1630,” Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston: By the Society, 1794), 1st ser., 3:74–85Google Scholar; “Letter of Israel Stoughton to DrStoughton, John,”Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston: By the Society, 1924–1925),58:453Google Scholar; Winthrop, , Journal, 1:132–134,Google Scholar 302, 303, 323–324, 2:3; 86–88, 97–98; Winthrop Papers, 4:81, 151; RMB, 2:20, 90–96.Google Scholar

22. Winthrop, , Journal, 1:133,Google Scholar 303, 2:86–88, 229–244. It is impossible to find any statement in the surviving record indicating the deputies had become antiministerial. Geography seemed to be the most important single factor in determining the way each deputy cast his ballot, and there seemed to be good reasons for this pattern that were unrelated to the deputies' assessments of the clergy. A more convincing explanation of the deputies' voting record wns made by Robert E. Wall, Jr., who interpreted the disagreements between upper and lower house as a power struggle. The role of the elders in the dispute was so limited that while they did participate—largely in the capacity of advisors—the problems that divided deputies and assistants could be easily understood with only occasional reference to their participation (Massachusetts Bay: The Crucial Decade 1640- 1650 [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], pp. 35–39, 70, 105, 122, 144, 157, 192–194,Google Scholar chapter 2, passim).

23. Hall, pp. 150–151.

24. RMB, 2: 177–180.Google Scholar

25. Ziff, , John Cotton on the Churches of New England, p. 26.Google Scholar

26. Cotton, John, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England (London, 1645), p. 40.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 6.

28. Ibid., p. 19.

29. Cotton, John, Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (London, 1644)Google Scholar, reprinted in Ziff, , John Cotton on the Churches of New England, p. 154.Google Scholar

30. Ibid., pp. 156–157.

31. Daniel Cawdrey excoriated Cotton's inconsistencies in Vindiciae Clavium (London, 1645)Google Scholar, prefatory material; Cotton, , The Way of the Congregational Churches Cleared, pp. 307–308.Google Scholar

32. Mather, Richard, Church-Government and Church-Covenant Discussed (London, 1643), pp. 82–83.Google Scholar

33. Winthrop, , Journal, 2:281.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., p. 274; RMB, 2: 155–156.Google Scholar

35. The Results of a Synod at Cambridge in New England, Anno. 1646 (n.p., 1654). Extract in Walker, p. 192.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., p. 193.

37. Ibid., p. 191.

38. Ibid.; Mather, , Magnalia, 5:21–22.Google Scholar

39. These were Richard Mather's “A ModeIl of Church Government” and Ralph Partridge's”On Church Government Written About the Time the Platform Was Under Consideration.” Both documents are in the Richard Mather MSS, American Antiquaran Society, Worcester, Massachusetts. Cotton presented no platform of his own, but for his influence was clearly present in Mathers draft.

40. Mather, , “Modell of Church Government,” p. 89.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., p. 95.

42. RMB, 1:168.Google Scholar

43. A Platform of Church Discipline (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1649)Google Scholar, Art. 15, sec. 6.

44. Cotton, , Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, p. 154Google Scholar; Platform of Church Discipline, Art.14, see. 4, Art. 16, see. 3.

45. There are numerous examples of secular interference in minor ecclesiastical matters after 1650. See Massachusetts Archives (Ecclesiastical), 10:31–32, 33–34, 35, 36, 44, 47, 48, 49–51, 55, 55a, 82–83, 85–89; RMB, 4:1,Google Scholar 42, 43, 70, 71, 113, 117, 227–228, 236, 309–310, 351, 378, 390, 393.

46. Ibid., pp. 122, 151, 156–157, 194, 215, 313.