he elective franchise to church-members. The three
towns fell into the position of the commonwealth's opposition, a
position not particularly desirable at the time and under all the
circumstances.

The ecclesiastical leaders of Dorchester were Warham and Maverick; of
Newtown, Hooker and Stone; of Watertown, Phillips. Haynes of Newtown,
Ludlow of Dorchester, and Pynchon of Roxbury, were the principal lay
leaders of the half-formed opposition. Some have thought that Haynes
was jealous of Governor Winthrop, Hooker of Cotton, and Ludlow of
everybody. But the opposition, if it can be fairly called an
opposition, was not so definite as to be traceable to any such
personal source. The strength which marked the divergence was due
neither to ambition nor to jealousy, but to the strength of mind and
character which marked the leaders of the minority.

Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone were of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Hooker began to preach at Chelmsford in 1626, and was silenced for
non-conformity in 1629. He then taught school, his assistant being
John Eliot, afterward the apostle to the Indians; but the chase after
him became warmer, and in 1630 he retired to Holland and resumed his
preaching. In 1632 he and Stone came to New England as pastor and
teacher of the church at Newtown; and the two took part in the
migration to Hartford. Here Hooker became the undisputed
ecclesiastical leader of Connecticut until his death in 1647. John
Warham and John Maverick, both of Exeter in England, came to New
England in 1630, as pastor and teacher of Dorchester. Maverick died
while preparing to follow his church, but Warham settled with his
parishioners at Windsor, and died there in 1670. George Phillips, also
a Cambridge man, came to New England in 1630, as pastor of the church
at Watertown. He took no part in the migration, but lived and died at
Watertown. Fate seems to have determined that Wendell Phillips should
belong to Massachusetts.

Roger Ludlow was Endicott's brother-in-law. He came to New England in
1630, and settled at Dorchester. He was deputy governor in 1634, and
seems to have been "slated," to use the modern term, for the
governorship in the following year. But this private agreement among
the deputies was broken, for some unknown reason, by the voters, who
chose Haynes, perhaps as a less objectionable representative of the
opposition. Ludlow complained so openly and angrily of the failure to
carry out the agreement that