Vindication of the Government of New England Churches 2, Answer · Query 1
AN ANSWER To the foregoing PROPOSALS.
THE nobleneſs of parentage, by the laws of honor, entails on poſterity, (with other rights) a protection from all incivilities, but not from the auſterer demands of juſtice, when that is affronted and violated. Juſtice keeping the golden rule, Quo dat ſuum Cuique) obſerves no other diſtinctions, than what it firſt makes in its diſtributions amongſt the rich and poor, the noble and ignoble, it is no reſpecter of perſons; for that it is ſuperior to all men, and ſits as a veiled empreſs, holding the ballance to weigh out equal to each one according to the merits of the cauſe, and ſees no man.
There being now under cognizance, ſuch as are of honorable families, and yet arreſted and brought by due courſe of law to anſwer for high crimes, it muſt not be ſuppoſed rudeneſs in manners, though they be ſomewhat freely and ruſty handled whilſt the proſecution is held agreable with the impeachment and rule of juſtice. And as for myſelf, who am under commiſſion from authority, to appear in defence of my country's ſacred liberties: I can in my own juſtification, affirm, that I have no diſhonorable inclinations, but carry a juſt mind, ſo as to condemn no man or thing, but upon plain evidence, nor to aggravate any plea beyond its juſt bounds.
Therefore tho' in the following pages there may be diſcerned, a great liberty in argument, with a mixture of ſatyrs, as tho' none but my inferiors were involved in the charge; yet aſcribe it unto my love and veneration for ſo great an intereſt as I appear for, and not to any baſe intent of ſinking the honor, or darkening the luſtre of men. I neither deſire nor deſign to hurt any man, no, not ſo much as an hair on his head, but I ſolely aim at ERROR, that is the butt I level for.
Thus having by this brief, but ſincere apology, ſecured the honor of my intentions, if I am worthy of belief; I ſhall no longer interrupt the proceſs, but ſhall nextly, draw up the indictment, upon which theſe propoſals are to paſs, and abide a trial.
And this I ſhall do in a form borrowed from ſir Edward Cooke, the King's attorney, in the arraignment of ſir Walter Rawleigh, in theſe words.
HERE is miſchief, miſchief in Summo Gradu; yea, exorbitant miſchief. This is the charge I offer to make good againſt the propoſals, at the bar of common reaſon; in order thereto, I ſhall proceed, and expect to produce ſufficient evidence under two heads.
1ſt. By a few preliminary queries.
2dly, By a more critical examination of the propoſals themſelves.
1. As introductory, and for the bringing in further evidence againſt the criminal propoſals, now upon their trial, I offer theſe following queries.
1ſt Query.
Whether the churches in New-England are not fairly in poſſeſſion of a form of government, by which they are diſtinguiſhed from moſt of the reformed churches in the world, more than by their grace? and if ſo, (which no man that knows them will deny,) then it muſt be ſome ſuperior power, or their own voluntary act, regularly obtained, that muſt out or diſpoſſeſs them. Did an equal claimer appear, yet long and quiet poſſeſſion holds againſt a writ of ejectment, a very ſtrong plea in the ſeſſions, both of reaſon and law; according to that acknowledged maxim, in Aequali Jure, melior eſt Conditi… Poſſidentis, when two plead an equal right, he is in the beſt condition who is in poſſeſſion; then it can be no leſs than a very indiſputable right, and duly proſecuted with effect, that can diſpoſſeſs theſe churches of their government.