30 Church and State (1636)

Demand 1. That the commonwealth should consist of two distinct ranks of men whereof the one should be for them and their heirs, gentlemen of the country, the other for them and their heirs, freeholders.

Answer. Two distinct ranks we willingly acknowledge, from the light of nature and scripture. The one of them called Princes, or Nobles, or Elders (amongst whom gentlemen have their place) the other the people. Hereditary dignity or honors we willingly allow to the former unless by the scandalous and base conversation of any of them, they become degenerate. Hereditary liberty, one estate of freemen, we willingly allow to the other, unless they also by some unworthy and slavish carriage, do disenfranchise themselves.

Demand 2. That in these gentlemen and freeholders assembled together, the chief power of the commonwealth shall be placed, both for making and repealing laws.

Answer. So it is with us.

Demand 3. That each of these two ranks should in all public assemblies have a negative voice, so as without mutual consent nothing should be established.

Answer. So it is agreed among us.

Demand 4. That the first rank consisting of gentlemen should have power for them and their heirs to come to the parliaments or public assemblies and there to give their free votes personally. The second rank of freeholders should have the same power for them and their heirs of meeting and voting, but by their deputies.

Answer. Thus far this demand is practiced among us. The freemen meet and vote by their deputies. The other rank give their votes personally, only with this difference: there be no more of the gentlemen that give their votes personally but such as are chosen to places of office; either governors, deputy governors, councilors, or assistants. All gentlemen in England have not that honor to meet and vote personally in Parliament, much less all their heirs. But of this more fully in an answer to the ninth and tenth demand.

Demand 5. That for facilitating and dispatch of business and other reasons, the gentlemen and freeholders should sit and hold their meetings in two distinct houses.

Answer. We willingly approve the motion, only as yet it is not so practiced among us. But in time, the variety and discrepancy of sundry occurrences will put them upon a necessity of sitting apart.

Demand 6. That there shall be set times for these meetings, annually or half yearly or as shall be thought fit by common consent. Which meetings should have a set time for their continuance but should be adjourned or broken off at the discretion of both houses.

Answer. Public meetings in general courts are by charter appointed to be quarterly, which in this infancy of the colony wherein many things frequently occur which need settling has been of good use. But when things are more fully settled in due order, it is likely that yearly or half yearly meetings will be sufficient. For the continuance or breaking up of these courts, nothing is done but with the joint consent of both branches.

Demand 7. That it shall be in the power of this parliament thus conflicted and assembled to call the governor and all public officers to account, to create new officers, and to determine them already set up. And the better to stop the way to insolence and ambition, it may be ordered that all offices and fees of office shall every parliament determine [terminate] unless they be new confirmed the last day of every session.

Answer. This power to call governors and all officers to account and to create new and determine [terminate] the old is settled already in the general court or parliament, only it is not put forth but once in the year, viz. at the great and general court in May when the governor is chosen.

Demand 8. That the governor shall ever be chosen out of the rank of gentlemen.

Answer. We never practice otherwise, choosing the governor either out of the assistants which is our ordinary course or out of approved known gentlemen, as this year Mr. Vane.

Demand 9. That for the present, the Right Honorable the Lord Viscount Say and Seale and the Lord Brooke, who have already been at great disbursements for the public works in New-England, and such other gentlemen of approved sincerity and worth as they before their personal remove shall take into their number, should be admitted for them and their heirs gentlemen of the country. But for the future, none shall be admitted into this rank but by the consent of both houses.

Answer. The great disbursements of these noble personages and worthy gentlemen we thankfully acknowledge, because the safety and presence of our brethren at Connecticut is no small blessing and comfort to us. As for accepting them and their heirs into the number of gentlemen of the country, the custom of this country is and readily would be to receive and acknowledge not only all such eminent persons as themselves and the gentlemen they speak of, but others of meaner estate so be it is of some eminency to be for them and their heirs, gentlemen of the country. Only, thus stands our case. Though we receive them with honor and allow them pre-eminence and accommodations according to their condition, yet we do not ordinarily call them forth to the power of election or administration of magistracy until they be received as members into some of our churches. Hereditary honors both nature and scripture does acknowledge (Eccles. xix. 17) but hereditary authority and power stands only by the civil laws of some commonwealths. And yet even amongst them, the authority and power of the father is nowhere communicated together with his honors unto all his posterity. Where God blesses any branch of any noble or generous family with a spirit and gifts fit for government, it would be a taking of God’s name in vain to put such a talent under a bushel and a sin against the honor of magistracy to neglect such in our public elections. But if God should not delight to furnish some of their posterity with gifts fit for magistracy, we should expose them rather to reproach and prejudice and the commonwealth with them [rather] than exalt them to honor, if we should call them forth when God does not to public authority.

Demand 10. That the rank of freeholders shall be made up of such as shall have so much personal estate there as shall be thought fit for men of that condition and have contributed some fit proportion to the public charge of the country, either by their disbursements or labors.

Answer. We must confess our ordinary practice to be otherwise. For, excepting the old planters, before the churches here were established none are admitted freemen of this commonwealth but such as are first admitted members of some church or other in this country. And of such, none are excluded from the liberty of freemen. And out of such only, I mean the more eminent sort of such it is that our magistrates are chosen. Both which points we should willingly persuade our people to change, if we could make it appear to them that such a change might be made according to God. For it seems to them and also to us to be a divine ordinance (and moral) that none should be appointed and chosen by the people of God [to be] magistrates over them, but men fearing God.

Objection. If it be said there may be many carnal men whom God has invested with sundry eminent gifts of wisdom, courage, justice, fit for government.

Answer. Such may be fit to be consulted with and employed by governors, according to the quality and use of their gifts and parts, but yet are men not fit to be trusted with place of standing power or settled authority.

Objection. If it be said again that then the church estate could not be compatible with any commonwealth under heaven.

Answer. It is one thing for the church or members of the church loyally to submit unto any form of government when it is above their calling to reform it, another thing to choose a form of government and governors discrepant from the rule. Now if it be a divine truth that none are to be trusted with public permanent authority but godly men who are fit materials for church fellowship, then from the same grounds it will appear that none are so fit to be trusted with the liberties of the commonwealth as church members. In case [if] worldly men should prove the major part [majority], as soon they might do, they would as readily set over us magistrates like themselves such as might hate us and turn the edge of all authority and laws against the church and the members thereof.

“Certain Proposals made by Lord Say, Lord Brooke, and other Persons of quality, as conditions of their removing to New-England, with the answers thereto”, by John Cotton in The history of the colony of Massachusetts-Bay, from the first settlement thereof in 1628, until its incorporation … in 1691. Thomas Hutchinson, 1760. 490-5. https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc/page/490/mode/2up