« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Haring shown, in our April number, that I jesuitical entanglement into which his wouldProtestantism, civil liberty, and religious be Grace, either ignorantly or designedly, toleration were fixed occupants of the soil of seeks to lead his people. Maryland before the Roman Catholic colony After the decease of Sir George Calvert, under Lord Baltimore was created, we again his honorary titles and fortunes passed te. take up the history of Maryland, and pro- his son Cecil, to wbom the charter elevating: ceed to show, through the operations of the the Catholic (1) colony of Maryland upoa: settlers under its charter, that even this Ro- Protestant Virginian soil, was duly granted! man Catholic colony became decidedly Pro by a Protestant king; and it was Cecil Calvert testant prior to, and was so at the time of, who, as Lord Baltimore, appointed his brothe American Revolution. The Archbishop ther (not his father) Leonard to act as his states in his “Chapter,” that
lieutenant. The latter, with about two hun. “George Calvert, knowu as Lord Baltimore,
dred emigrants, mostly but not all Roman was the projector of the Catholic colony of Mary Catholics, sailed for the Potoinac, arriving in land, although it was actually settled under the
March, 1634. Upon their arrival, although leadership of his brother, Leonard Calvert."
the Commissioners of Virginia in England Here is a falsity as to fact. Leonard Cal had, in 1633, remonstrated against the terrivert was the son and not the brother of Sirtorial grant as an infringement on her domains George ; and the latter became deceased and a discouragement to her planters, yet, in before the former sailed for America. The obedience to the express commands of King false inference led to is, that Leonard acted | James I., the emigrants were welcomed by in behalf of Sir George, which inference is
Harvey, the Governor of Virginia, with courstrengthened by the Archbishop giving at tesy and humanity. In March, 1635, the once a quotation from Bancroft, stating the first legislative assembly in the new province expedition and landing in Maryland; fol was convened, for the passing of laws, eachi lowing it up immediately with another quo freeman being entitled to a vote; for, says . tation, giving the character of the deceased the Archbishop, gentleman; and directly with another from the same historian, stating the oath for the “Representative government was indissolubly.
connected with the fundamental charter;" governor," and "munificence of Baltimore,” as if they related all to the same individual. a point that we should not lose sight of as Thus we have exemplified the characteristic a condition of the grant emanating from
a Protestant king. The Archbishop quotes first act of religious bigotry staining the from Bancroft thus :
statute-book was Catholic, and one that
should not have missed honorable notice in « Every other country in the world had perse the “Catholic Chapter.” We find the Archthe Governor of Maryland I will not, by myself bishop continually transposing events, possison professing to believe in Jesus Christ
, for op in bly to make them read better, or as being due respect of religion.'"
"to the propriety of the occasion." Thus, a
quotation from Bancroft, commencing with, It is to be observed, that this oath is for "Maryland at that day was unsurpassed for the acting governor, a lieutenant of the pro- happiness and liberty,” and applying to prietor, Cecil Calvert, and emanates from 1642, after the people had resisted the enthe people, at the passing of laws; also, croachment upon their rights by the prothat it is in strict accordance with the pro- prietor, is preceded in the Catholic Chapter visions of the charter; and, truly, we could by an act of the colonial assembly in 1649, wish that every Roman Catholic in the (seven years later,) when, according to Bozworld would take it; and, further, that his man, a majority of the members were Pro“ Holiness” the Pope should cease to claim testants. We insert the quotation, which is the power to grant them absolution there from Bancroft: from ; yet the proprietary grant was, in this
""And whereas, the enforcing of the conscience instance, a pretty strong inducement against in matters of religion—such was the sublime tenor the seeking of such kind interference. In of the statute bath frequently fallen out to be May, 1635, some of the first occupants, where it has been practised, and for the more
of dangerous consequence in those commonwealths under Clay borne as a leader, refused to sub- quiet and peaceful government of this province, mit to the encroachments upon their terri and the better to preserve mutual love and amity
Among the inhabitants, no person within this protory; a bloody skirmish followed, yet Clay- vince, professing to believe in Jesus Christ
, shall borne's men were defeated by the new
be any ways troubled, molested, or discountedanced
for his or her religion, or in the free exercise there. comers. We now pass on to the acts of the of!" But, says Bancroft
, “The clause for liberty in people, and find that, according to Bancroft, Maryland extended only to Christians, and was
introduced with a proviso: Whatsoever person in 1638,
shall blaspheme God, or shall deny or reproach “The people of Maryland rejected the code
the Holy Trinity, or any of the three Persons which the proprietary, as if holding the exclusive thereof, shall be punished with death."" privilege of proposing statutes, had prepared for their government; and asserting their equal rights
Bancroft informs us that this religious act of legislation, they in turn enacted a body of laws,
was passed at the earnest desire of the Rowhich they proposed for the assent of the proprietary; so uniformly active in America was the man Catholics, and with the earnest concurspirit of popular liberty..... Yet an apprehension rence of their governor; that it was in conof some remote danger of persecution seems even then to bave hovered over the minds of the Row sequence of an apprehension of pending man Catholics ; and, at the session of 1689, they danger; and thus we learn that it was not Those rights and those liberties, it is plain, from solicited, on their part, with a feeling of conthe charter, could be no more than the tranquil cession and toleration, but rather for selfexercise of the Roman worship."
preservation, they being in the minority. Thus Catholics were as yet only five years We must not lose sight of the struggle in in a Catholic colony, and had already grown England between the monarchists and repubapprehensive ! It looks as if there must lícans, which, as relating to their religion, have been some few Protestants there, could be stated as being between Episcopathrough permission of the charter granted lians and Puritans. The same issues arose by their king, and evidently working briskly in this country. The English monarch fell; for the full measures of civil liberty, which Cromwell had succeeded. This was a crisis the lord proprietor was measurably with for Lord Baltimore and his proprietaryship. holding. Yet we notice this fact, that the His injunctions were strict, and repeated
to the government of the colony; and, in
It should be, on account of the political conformity with them, no disturbance was tendencies of their Church, and then viewed given in Maryland to any person formatters in reference to the state of the times. The of religion;" and thus, at this period, we Romanists were monarchists; the rights learn-quoted by the Archbishop from Ban- proprietary constituted a mimio monarchy. croft—that
The Puritans were friends of popular liberty, "The disfranchised friends of prelacy from Mas.
were hostile to monarchy, and equally so to sachusetts, and the Puritans from Virginia, were an hereditary proprietary. They had comwelcomed [in accordance with the charter] to equal liberty of conscience and political
rights in pelled Stone, the commissioner of Lord Balthe Roman Catholic colony of Maryland.” timore, to surrender the commission and
government into their bands At this point in history the Archbishop now become identified with religious sects,
. Parties had pauses, to remark:
after which, an intolerant act was passed " By all this it would seem that the provision of by the Puritans, who were at this period in the Federal Constitution, securing universal free; the majority. Cromwell, the Protestant as having been almost literally copied from the ruler of England, never approved the deprovisions of the charter and statutes of the Ca
cree; he commanded the assembly “not to tholic colony of Maryland, proclaimed and acted upon by them one hundred and forty years before busy themselves about religion, but to settle the war of independence. Hence, 1 submit that the civil government.” Struggles (intercine) what has occurred since, but by their presence and commenced in 1655. Papists, and others, their principles and their practice, from the earli- arm and get possession of provincial records ; est colonial times, are entitled in their own right but they are attacked and defeated. 1658: to a full participation of all the privileges, whether civil or religious, which have been acquired by this A compromise is effected; and then folcountry in the progress of ber history."
lowed, according to Bancroft, Now, we conceive that the "provisions of
* Permission to retain arms; an indemnity for the charter," and also of the statutes, so far arrears; relief from the path of fealty; and a conas they relate to civil and religious liberty, ritan Assemblies; (for) these were the terms of
firmation of the acts and orders of the recent Puare eminently Protestant, and that they cer- surrender, and prove the influence of the Puritainly proceeded from or were granted by tans." Protestants; yet the Roman Catholie Arch
In 1660, the Assembly of Maryland disbishop of New-York would call them their solved the upper house, consisting of the principles and their practices ! Would to governor and his council, and assumed to God they were not only theirs-his-but itself the whole legislative power, and was the principles of all Catholics throughout thus in full possession of liberty, based upon the world! The principles of religious tole- the practical assertion of the sovereignty of ration were declared by the Protestant dis- the people. In 1661, the restoration of the coverer, Roger Williams, upon American Stuarts was also the restoration of the prosoil, in 1631, before the charter of Maryland prietary, which continued after his decease was written or thought of. They tolerated  to his son Charles, who, in 1681, the infidel, pagan, Mussulman-all mankind, limited the right of suffrage; and, subsewhether fools or philosophers; and since he quently, in 1688,) an Assembly was congave these principles freely to the world, let vened, and an attempt made to exact an « Catholics” take them, and work up to oath of fidelity. It was resisted; and, in them in full faith. There is one other point 1689, an armed association was formed by to be noticed. The Archbishop says: the people, for asserting the right of King
" You will be surprised and sorry to hear that William. The deputies of Lord Baltimore the Catholics of Maryland, who had given such an endeavored to oppose the association by example as we have seen described, were them. selves disfranchised in 1664, on account of their force, but at length they capitulated, and religion."
yielded assent to the exclusion of Papists