At the heart of both theologies is the belief that God is essentially unknowable. Miller argues that there is continuity between Calvinist theology and the federal theology of the Puritans, but that the two are far from identical. Both states built upon the same Congregationalist foundation. CT then succeeded in “carrying Congregationalism into politics” (44) in a way that was different from, but not fundamentally separate from, MA. Because they were not constrained by a preformed governmental structure, they were able to implement a system that fit what “had already materialized” (38). While Winthrop and the MA leader were confined by their Charter, which had a preformed governmental structure, Hooker and the CT leaders drew up their Fundamental Orders after they had been organically developed. The difference in emphasis can largely be explained by the geography and restrictions placed on the two colonies. They just put different emphasis on the power balance between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Politically, he admits that CT’s Fundamental Order allow for greater representation and that Hooker’s political contentions sounds more “democratic” than MA’s (see 36-37), but both state’s political systems were based on the principles of Congregationalism. Theologically, he argues that there was not a fundamental difference between Hooker and the major figures in MA (Cotton, Winthrop). While scholars have argued that Hooker left MA in order to implement a more “democratic” society, Miller rejects this argument on a number of counts. Miller argues against scholarship (notably Parrington) that praised Thomas Hooker and his Connecticut colony for being more fully “democratic” than Winthrop and Massachusetts, which was “theocratic.” He begins by explaining the basics of Congregationalism, which was simultaneously “monarchical” (in respect to Christ’s authority”, “aristocratic” (in respect to the elders/officers) and “democratic” (in respect to the congregation). Having failed to rivet the eyes of the world upon their city on the hill, they were left alone with America” (15). They could no longer “report back to” their superiors in England on the progress of their errand and “they were left with the second, and required to fill it with meaning by themselves and out of themselves. The Puritans in New England faced a crisis of identity in the last decades of the 17th century. Second, the “triumph” of the Puritans in New England, following the victory of Oliver Cromwell had not, as hoped, “completed” the Reformation but had led to a policy of “Tolerance” in which “so long as a man made a good soldier in the New Model Army, it did not matter whether he was a Calvinist, an Antinomian, an Arminian, an Anabaptist or even-horror of horrors-a Socinian!” (13). First, there was in “irreconcilable split” within New England between Independent (Congregationalist) and Presbyterian visions (13). By the 1650s and 60s, the Puritan’s “errand” had met two barriers. The first generation was in no way “American” nor did they see themselves as such. Miller suggests that the initial errand had been essentially English and European, and done to “prove” the Reformation cause on uncorrupted soil. Which type of “errand” defined the Puritan mission in New England?

The second type of errand is more self-conscious: “the actual business on which the actor goes, the purpose itself, the conscious intention in his mind” (3). The first is done in service to a superior power “the errand boy” who follows the directions of his senior.

But he intends, as Danforth did, to stress the “errand” aspect of the Puritan endeavor. The “wilderness” is part of what sets New England apart from England, and a “basic conditioning factor” of New England “was the frontier” (1). Miller begins by clarifying the terms of his title, which is taken from Samuel Danforth’s 1670 sermon A Brief Recognition of New England’s Errand into the Wilderness.

Perry miller errand into the wilderness