Part 4

Calvert, a protestant officer of the crown, became a catholic, and, retiring to private life, was rewarded by his king, with a pension, estates, and an American principality;--Penn, the son of a British Admiral, and who is only accurately known to us by a portrait which represents him _in armor_, began life as an adherent of the Church of England, and having conscientiously, doffed the steel for the simple garb of Quakerism, was persecuted, not only by his government but his parent. Calvert took the grant of a feudal charter, and asserting all its legislative and baronial powers, sought to fasten its Chinese influence, in feudal fixedness, on his colonists;--but Penn, knowing that feudalism was an absurdity, in the necessary equality of a wilderness, embraced his great authority in order "to leave himself and his successors no power of doing mischief, so that the will of one man might not hinder the good of a whole community."[17]

Calvert seems to have thought of English or Irish emigration alone;--Penn, did not confine himself to race, but sought for support from the Continent as well as from Britain.[18]

Calvert was ennobled for his services;--Penn rejected a birthright which might have raised him to the peerage.

Calvert's public life was antecedent to his American visit--Penn's was almost entirely subsequent to the inception of his "holy experiment."

Calvert laid the foundations of a mimic kingdom;--Penn, with the power of a prince, stripped himself of authority. The one was naturally an aristocrat of James's time; the other, quite as naturally, a democrat of the transition age of Sidney.

Calvert imagined that mankind stood still; but, Penn believed, that mankind _ever_ moves, or, that like an army under arms, when not marching, it is marking time.

While to Calvert is due the honor of a considerable religious advance on his age, as developed in his charter,--Penn is to be revered for the double glory of civil and _perfect_ religious liberty. Calvert mitigated man's lot by toleration;--Penn expanded the germ of toleration into unconditional freedom.

Calvert was the founder of a Planting Province, mainly agricultural, and creative of all the manorial dependencies;--but Penn seems to have heartily cherished the idea of a great City, and of the commerce it was to gather and develope from a wilderness over which it was to stand as guardian sentinel. As farming was the chief interest of the one, trading, became, also, a favorite of the other; and thus, while the _transient_ trader visited, supplied, and left the native Indian free,--the _permanent_ planter settled forever on his "hunting grounds," and drove him further into the forest.

Calvert recognized the law of war;--Penn made peace a fundamental institution. They both felt that civilized nations have a double and concurrent life,--material and spiritual;--but Calvert sought rather to develop one, while Penn addressed himself to the care of both.

Calvert's idea was to open a new land by old doctrines, and to form his preserving amber around a worthless fly;--but Penn's Pennsylvania was to crystalize around the novel and lucid nucleus of freedom.

Calvert supposed that America was to be a mere reflex of Britain, and that the heart of his native Island would pulsate here; but Penn, seeing that the future population of America, like the soil of the Mississippi Valley, would be an alluvial deposit from the overflow of European civilization, thought it right to plant a new doctrine of human rights, which would grow more vigorously for its transplanting and culture.

* * * * *

The germs of Civil and Religious freedom may be found elsewhere in the foundation of American provinces and colonies. I know they are claimed for the cabin of the Mayflower, the rock of Plymouth, and the sands of Rhode Island. But I think that William Penn is justly entitled to the honor of adopting them on principle, after long and patient reflection, as the seed of his people, and thus, of having taken from their introduction by him into this country, all the disparagement of originating either in discontent or accident. His plan was the offspring of beautiful design, and not the gypsey child of chance or circumstance.

History is to man what water is to the landscape,--it mirrors, but distorts in its reflection, and the great founder of Pennsylvania has suffered from this temporary distortion. But, at length, the water will become still, and the image will be perfect. Penn is one of those majestic figures that loom up on the waste of time, in the same eternal permanence and simple grandeur in which the Pyramids rise in relief from the sands of Egypt. Let no Arab displace a single stone!

APPENDIX No. I.

It is singular that the clause in the XXII section of Charles Ist's charter to Lord Baltimore, relating to the interpretation of that instrument in regard to religion, has never been accurately translated, but that all commentators have, hitherto, followed the version given by Bacon. I shall endeavor to demonstrate the error.

The following parallel passages exhibit the original Latin, and Bacon's adopted translation:

ORIGINAL LATIN.

The 22nd section of the charter of Maryland, copied from Bacon's Laws, wherein it was adopted from an attested copy from the original record remaining in the Chapel of Rolls in 1758:

"SECTION XXII. Et si fortè imposterum contingat Dubitationes aliquas quæstiones circa verum sensum et Intellectum alicujus verbi clausulæ vel sententiæ in hâe presenti CHARTA nostrâ contentæ generari EAM semper et in omnibus Interpretationem adhiberi et in quibuscunque Curiis et Prætoriis nostris obtinere VOLUMUS præcipimus et mandamus quæ præfato modò Baroni de BALTIMORE Hæredibus et Assignatis suis benignior utilior et favorabilior esse judicabitur Proviso semper quod nulla fiat Interpretatio per quam sacro-sancta DEI et vera Christiana Religio aut Ligeantia NOBIS Hæredibus et successoribus nostris debita Immutatione Prejudicio vel dispendio in aliquo patiantur:" &c. &c.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

Translation of the 22nd section of the charter, from Bacon's Laws of Maryland, wherein it is copied from an old translation published by order of the Lower House in the year 1725:

"SECTION XXII. And if, peradventure, hereafter it may happen that any doubts or questions should arise concerning the true sense and meaning of any word, clause or sentence contained in this our present charter, we will, charge, and command, THAT Interpretation to be applied, always, and in all things, and in all our Courts and Judicatories whatsoever, to obtain which shall be judged to be more beneficial, profitable and favorable to the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns: Provided always that no interpretation thereof be made whereby GOD's holy and true christian religion, or the allegiance due to us, our heirs and successors, may, in any wise, suffer by change, prejudice or diminution:" &c. &c.

It will be noticed that this _Latin_ copy, according to the well known ancient usage in such papers, is not punctuated, so that we have no guidance, for the purpose of translation, from that source.

The translation of this section as far as the words: "_Proviso semper quod nulla fiat interpretatio_," &c. is sufficiently correct; but the whole of the final clause, should in my opinion, be rendered thus:--

"Provided always that no interpretation thereof be made, whereby GOD'S HOLY RIGHTS _and_ the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, or the allegiance due to us our heirs or successors, may, in any wise suffer by change, prejudice or diminution." Let me offer my reasons for this alteration:

1st, This new translation harmonizes with the evident grammatical construction of the Latin sentence, and is the easiest as well as most natural. The common version, given by Bacon: "GOD'S holy _and_ true CHRISTIAN religion,"--is grossly pleonastic, if not nonsensical. Among christians, "God's religion," can of course, only be the "christian religion;" and, with equal certainty, it is not only a "true" religion, but a "holy" one!

2nd, The word _Sacrosanctus_, always conveys the idea of a _consecrated inviolability, in consequence of inherent rights and privileges_. In a dictionary, _contemporary with the charter_, I find the following definition,--_in verbo sacrosanctus._

"SACROSANCTUS: Apud Ciceronem dicebatur id quod interposito jurejurando sanctum, et institutum erat idem etiam significat ac sanctus, _santo_. _Tribunus plebis dicebatur sacrosanctus, quia eum nefas erat attingere, longè diviniori ratione Catholici appellamus ecclesiam Romanam sacrosanctam._ Calpinus Parvus;--seu Dictionarium Cæsaris Calderini Mirani: _Venetiis_, 1618."

Cicero, _in Catil_: 2. 8.--uses the phrase--"Possessiones sacrosanctæ," in this sense; and so does Livy in the epithet,--"Sacrosancta potestas," as applied to the Tribuneship; and, in the sentence,--"ut plebi sui magistratus essent sacrosanctæ."

From the last sentence, in the definition given in the Venetian Dictionary of 1618, which I have cited in italics, it will be seen that the epithet had a peculiarly Catholic signification _in its appropriation_ by the Roman Church.

3d, I contend that "_sacrosancta_" does not qualify "_religio_," but agrees with _negotia_, or some word of similar import, understood; and thus the phrase--"_sacrosancta Dei_"--forms a distinct branch of the sentence.

If the translation given in Bacon is the true one, the positions of the words "sacrosancta" and "Dei" should be reversed, for their present collocation clearly violates accurate Latin construction. In that case, "_Dei_" being subject to the government of "_religio_," ought to precede "_sacrosancta_," which would be appurtenant to "_religio_," while "_et_," which would then couple the two adjectives instead of the two members of the sentence, should be placed immediately between them, without the interposition of any word to disunite it either from "_sacrosancta_" or "_vera_." If my translation be correct, then the collocation of all the words in the original Latin of the charter, is proper. If "_sacrosancta_" is a neuter adjective agreeing with "_negotia_," understood,--and "_et_" conjoins members of sentences, then the whole clause is obedient to a positive law of Latin verbal arrangement. Leverett says: "The genitive is elegantly put before the noun which governs it with one or more words between; _except_ when the genitive is _governed by a neuter adjective_, in which case, _it must_ be _placed after it_."

4th, Again:--if "_et_" joins "_sacrosancta_" and "_vera_," which, thereby, qualify the same noun, there are _then_ only two nominatives in the Latin sentence of the charter, viz: "_religio_" and "_ligcantia_." Now these nouns, being coupled by the disjunctive conjunction "_aut_," must have the verb agreeing with them _separately_ in the singular. But, as "_patiantur_" happens to be in the plural, the author of the charter must either have been ignorant of one of the simplest grammar rules, or have designed to convey the meaning I contend for.

I must acknowledge the aid and confirmation I have received, in examining this matter, from the very competent scholarship of my friend Mr. Knott, assistant Librarian of the Maryland Historical Society.

APPENDIX No. II.

The scope of my discourse is confined to the illustration of _principles_ either announced, or acted on, in the _founding_ of Maryland and Pennsylvania. I have contended that Sir George Calvert, the _first_ Lord Baltimore, so framed the charter which was granted by Charles I, that, without express concessions, the general character of its language in regard to religious rights, would secure liberty of conscience to christians.

I: 1632.--Language can scarcely be more perspicuously comprehensive, than in the phrase: "God's Holy Rights and the true Christian Religion." Under such a clause, _in the charter_, no particular church could set up a claim for its exclusive christianity. There was no mention, in the instrument, of "the Established Church," or, of "the Church of England." The Catholic could not deny the Episcopalian's christianity; the Episcopalian could not deny the Catholic's, nor could the Puritan question the christianity of either. All professed faith in Christ. Each of the three great sects might contend that its _form_ of worship, or interpretation of the Bible, was the correct one; but all came lawfully under the great generic class of christians. And, while the political government of the colonists was to be conducted by a Catholic magistrate, in a province belonging to a Catholic Lord,--the _interpretation_ of the law of religious rights was to be made, not by the laws of England, but exclusively under the paramount law of the provincial charter. By that document the broad "rights of God," and "the true christian religion," could not "suffer by change, prejudice or diminution."

This view is strengthened by a clause in the 4th section of the charter, by which the king granted Lord B. "the patronages and advowsons of ALL _churches_ which, _with the increasing worship and_ RELIGION OF CHRIST, (_crescenti Christi cultu et religione_,") should be built within his province. The right of _advowson_, being thus bestowed on the Lord Proprietary, for _all Christian Churches_; his majesty, then, goes on, empowering Lord B. to erect and found churches, chapels, &c. and _to cause_ them to be dedicated "_according to the Ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England_." The general right of advowson, and the particular privilege, conceded to a Catholic, of causing the consecration of Episcopal churches, are _separate_ powers and ought not to be confounded by a hasty reader of the charter.

I think there can hardly be a fair doubt that the interpretation I give to the 22nd clause is the one assigned to it by the immigrants from the earliest colonial movement in 1633. We may assert, therefore, the fact, that religious freedom was offered and secured for christians, in the province of Maryland, from the very beginning.

II: 1633.--We must recollect that under the English statutes, _adherents of the national church required no protection_; they were free in the exercise of their faith; but Catholics and Puritans were not so happily situated, and, accordingly, they sought, in the new world an exemption from the disabilities and persecutions they experienced at home. Can it be credited, that, under such vexations, the Catholic Lord Baltimore would have drawn a charter, or, his Catholic son and successor, sent forth a colony, under a Catholic Governor, when the fundamental law, under which alone he exercised his power, did not secure liberty to him and his co-religionists? It is simply necessary to ask the question, in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a supposition.

III: 1634.--If we show, then, that Catholic conscience was untrammeled in Maryland, I think we may fairly assume the general ground as satisfactorily proved. What was, briefly, the first movement of this sect, under the Lord Proprietary's auspices? When Lord Cæcilius was planning his colonial expedition in 1633, one of his earliest cares was to apply to the Order of Jesus for clergymen to attend the Catholic planters and settlers, and to convert the natives. Accordingly, under the sanction of the Superior, Father White joined the emigrants, _although, under previous persecutions in England, he had been sent into perpetual banishment, to return from which subjected the culprit to the penalty of death_! These facts are set forth, at page 14 of the 2nd volume of Challoner's Memoirs. Historia Anglo-Bavara, S. J. Rev. Dr. Oliver's collections illustrative of the Scotch, English and Irish Jesuits, page 222, and in the essay on the Early Maryland Missions, by Mr. B. U. Campbell. Fathers Andrew White and John Altham, and two lay brothers, named John Knowles and Thomas Gervase, accompanied the first expedition, and were active agents in consecrating the possession of the soil, and converting _Protestant immigrants_ as well as heathen natives. The colony, therefore, cannot properly be called a Protestant one, when its _only_ spiritual guides were Catholics; and consequently if it was more of a Catholic than a Protestant emigration, it must, by legal necessity, have been free from the moment it quitted the shores of England. If the Catholic was free, all were free.

IV: 1637.--Our next authority, in regard to the _early interpretation_ of religious rights in Maryland, is found in a passage in Chalmers's Political Annals, page 235. "In the oath," says he, "taken by the Governor and Council, _between_ the years 1637 and 1657, there was the following clause, which ought to be administered to the rulers of every country. 'I will not, by myself or any other, directly or indirectly, trouble, molest or discountenance, any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, for or on account of his religion.'" This shows, that "belief in Jesus Christ," under the constitutional guaranty of the charter, anterior to the enactment of any colonial law by the Maryland Assembly, secured sects from persecution. The language of the oath, which was doubtless promulgated by the Lord Proprietor, is as broad as the language of the charter. The statement of Chalmers has been held to be indefinite as to whether the oath was taken _from_ 1637 to 1657, or, whether it was taken in some years _between_ those dates; but, if the historian did not mean to say that it had been administered _first_ in 1637, and continued afterwards, why would he not have specified any other, as the beginning year, as well as 1637? The objection seems rather hypercritical than plausible. Chalmers was too accurate a writer to use dates so loosely, and inasmuch as he was an old Maryland lawyer and custodian of the Maryland provincial papers, he had the best opportunity to designate the precise date. A Governor's oath was a regular and necessary official act. No one can doubt that an oath was required of that personage in Maryland; and the oath in question, is precisely such an one as Protestant settlers, in that age, might naturally expect from a Catholic Magistrate, who, (even from motives of the humblest policy,) would be willing to grant to others what he was anxious to secure for himself. If ever there was a proper time for perfect toleration, it was at this moment, when a Catholic became, _for the first time in history_, a sovereign prince of the _first province_ of the British Empire!

Mr. Chalmers could not have confounded the oath whose language he cites, with other oaths which the reader will find cited in the 2nd volume of Bozman's History of Maryland, at pages 141, 608, 642. The oath prepared for Stone in 1648, appears to have been an augmented edition of the one quoted by Chalmers, and is so different in parts of its phraseology as well as items, that it cannot have been mistaken by the learned annalist. Bancroft, McMahon, Tyson, C. F. Mayer and B. U. Campbell, adopt his statement as true.

V: 1638.--In regard to the early _practice of Maryland_ tribunals, on the subject of tolerance, we have a striking case in 1638. In that year a certain _Catholic_, named William Lewis, was arraigned before the Governor, Secretary, &c., for _abusive language to Protestants_. Lewis confessed, that, coming into a room where Francis Gray and Robert Sedgrave, servants of Captain Cornwaleys, were reading, he heard them recite passages so that he should hear them, that were reproachful to his religion, "viz: that the Pope was anti-Christ, and the Jesuits anti-Christian Ministers, &c: he told them it was a falsehood and came from the devil, and that he that writ it was an instrument of the devil, and so he would approve it!" The court found the culprit "guilty of a very offensive speech in calling the Protestant ministers, the ministers of the devil," and of "exceeding his rights, in forbidding them to read a lawful book." In consequence of this "offensive language," and other "unreasonable disputations, in point of religion, tending to the disturbance of the peace and quiet of the Colony, committed by him, _against a public proclamation set forth to prohibit all such disputes_," Lewis was fined and remanded into custody until he gave security for future good behaviour.[19]

Thus, four years, only, after the settlement, the liberty of conscience was vindicated by a recorded judicial sentence, and "unreasonable disputations in point of religion," rebuked by a Catholic Governor in the person of a Catholic offender. There could scarcely be a clearer evidence of impartial and tolerant sincerity. The decision, moreover, is confirmatory of the fact that the Governor had taken such an oath as Chalmers cites, in the previous year, 1637; especially as there had _already been a "proclamation to prohibit disputes_!"

VI: 1638.--At the _first efficient_ General Assembly of the Colony, which was held in this year, only two Acts were passed, though thirty-six other bills were twice read and engrossed, but not finally ripened into laws. The second of the two acts that were passed, contains a section asserting that "Holy Church, _within this province_, shall have all her rights and liberties;" thus securing the rights of Catholics;--while the first of the thirty-six incomplete acts was one, which we know only by _title_, as "An act for _Church liberties_." It was to continue in force until the end of the next General Assembly, and then, with the Lord Proprietary's consent, to be perpetual. Although we have no means of knowing the extent of the proposed "Church liberties," we may suppose that the proposed enactment was general, in regard to all Christian sects besides the Catholics.

VII: 1640.--At the session of 1640, an act for "Church liberties" _was passed_ on the 23d October, and confirmed, as a perpetual law, in the first year of the accession of Charles Calvert, 3d Lord Baltimore, in 1676. This Act also declares that "Holy Church, within this province, shall have and enjoy all her rights, liberties and franchises, wholly and without blemish." Thus, in 1640, legislation had already settled opinion as to the rights of Catholics and Protestants. Instead of the early Catholics seeking to contract the freedom of other sects, their chief aim and interest seem to have been to secure their own. I consider the Acts I have cited rather as mere declaratory statutes, than as necessary original laws.

VIII: 1649.--In this year, an assembly, believed to have been composed of a Protestant majority, passed the act which has been lauded as the source of religious toleration. It is "An Act concerning Religion," and, in my judgment, is less tolerant than the Charter or the Governor's Oath, inasmuch as it included Unitarians in the same category with blasphemers and those who denied our Saviour Jesus Christ, punishing all alike, with confiscation of goods and the pains of _death_. This was the epoch of the trial and execution of Charles I, and of the establishment of the Commonwealth.

IX: 1654.--The celebrated act I have just noticed, however, was passed fifteen years after the original settlement, which exceeds the period comprised in the actual _founding_ of Maryland. Besides this, the political and religious aspect of England was changing, and the influence of the home-quarrel was beginning to be felt across the Atlantic. In 1654, during the mastery of Cromwell, religious freedom was destroyed: Puritanism became paramount; Papacy and Prelacy were denounced by law; and freedom was assured only to Puritans, and such as professed "faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgment, from the doctrine or worship publicly held forth."