Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PUTNAM'S MONTHLY.

A Magazine of Literature, Science, and Art.

VOL. VII.—APRIL, 1856.-NO. XL.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA.*

A CONTROVERSY has lately sprung up, and from time to time is renewed, touching the priority and relative merits of the colonies of Maryland and Rhode Island, as respects the policy of religious freedom.

This is a question of a good deal of historical curiosity; and as the Maryland side of it has just been elaborately set forth in the work cited below, to enable all those interested to solve it for themselves, we proceed to give a brief but comprehensive statement of the facts of the case.

The colony of Maryland, as is well known, originated with George Calvert, a gentleman of Yorkshire, originally, it is said, of Flemish descent, a graduate of Oxford, and a protégé of Sir Robert Cecil, by whose favor, early in the reign of James I., he obtained the clerkship of the privy council and the honor of knighthood. Calvert had early interested himself in American colonization, having been a member of the Virginia company, by which the earliest of the Anglo-American colonies was planted, from 1609 to its dissolution in 1625. He was thus led, as Penn was afterward, through similar associations, to aspire to become the founder of a colony of his own; for which purpose, as early as 1622, being then one

of the secretaries of state, he obtained from King James a grant, by the name of Avalon, of the southeastern peninsula of Newfoundland, where he established a little colony, composed of settlers from Ireland, in which country, as was usual with English courtiers, Calvert had acquired a large landed prop

erty.

The open avowal, on the part of Sir George Calvert, of the Roman Catholic faith, to which, as the fashion then was with the courtiers in most Protestant countries, he had long secretly inclined, made it expedient for him to resign his office of secretary of state. But he still kept his favor at court, being retained as a member of the Privy Council, and created an Irish peer, with the title of Lord Baltimore. Delivered, now, from other cares, he pursued with zeal his project of an American colony. He twice visited Newfoundland, and spent, it is said, £25,000 sterling on that project. But he encountered nu

merous and invincible obstacles. The climate was cold and foggy. The land was sterile. The French and Spanish fishermen, who had frequented those coasts for more than a century, were little inclined to respect a mere English grant; and even the English fishermen insisted on the free use of all the shores

The Day-star of American Freedom; or, the Birth and Early Growth of Toleration in the Province of Maryland. By GEORGE LYNN LUDLOW DAVIS, of the Bar of Baltimore. New York: C. Scribner, 1856.

VOL. VII.-22

and harbors, and looked with no favor on any claims to exclusive possessionfeelings, on their part, which long delayed the peopling of Newfoundland, causing it to be regarded, till a very recent period, less as a colony than as a mere fishing station, of which the government, down even to our times, was rather that of a ship at sea than of a colony on shore.

During his residence at Newfoundland, Lord Baltimore paid a visit to Virginia; but the colonists, perhaps suspecting the design with which he came, did not give him a very hospitable reception. Under a standing law, the oath of supremacy was tendered to him-an oath purposely contrived to entangle or detect persons of the Catholic faith, including, as it did, a positive and direct repudiation of the pope's spiritual authority. From this it will be seen that Know-Nothingism is rather an ancient institution among us, and that Catholics got but a cool welcome from the first: Calvert was even exposed to personal insult; but for this the culprits were called to account. Though thus coolly received, he remained long enough to ascertain, that in the northern part of Virginia was a fertile and well-watered tract, upon which no settlements had yet been made. Returning to England, he obtained from Charles I. the promise of a grant, under a royal charter, conferring not only a property in the soil. but powers of government also.

This new province was to be called Maryland, after one of the names of the queen. But, before the charter had passed the seals, the first Lord Baltimore died, and the patent issued to his son and heir, Cecilius, the second lord.

Some historians and biographers have ascribed to the projector of the Maryland colony the design of providing a refuge, in America, for the Catholics of England and Ireland, exposed at home, even more than were the Puritans, to the severity of persecuting laws. That Lord Baltimore expected to obtain his colonists, at least such of them as might embark capital of their own in the enterprise, among the Catholics, and that he looked to the state of the English law as likely to facilitate that result, is highly probable. But we know not of any contemporary authority for the supposition, that he had any religious object in view, or that the colony was

66

not, in its origin and conception, what it subsequently became in its actual plantation, a mere territorial and pecuniary enterprise-the growth of the colony and the increase of quit rents being the considerations always uppermost in the mind of the proprietary, and to which his scheme of toleration was wholly subservient. Still less does there seem any foundation for ascribing, as has been done, to this Catholic nobleman, the project of founding a colony, in which all religions were to be placed on a perfect level of equality -a piece of undutifulness to mother church hardly to be expected from a new convert. We are told, indeed, by Bancroft, that the first Lord Baltimore, whom he supposes, but on what grounds or authority it does not appear. to have been the draughtsman of the Maryland charter, as he had taken from himself and his successors all arbitrary power, by establishing the legislative franchises of the people, had also taken from them the means of being intolerant in religion, by securing to all present and future liege people of the English king, without distinction of sect or party, free leave to transport themselves and their families to Maryland. Christianity was, by the charter, made the law of the land; but no preference was given to any sect, and equality in religious rights, no less than in civil freedom, was assured.” Such is the historian's statement; but, on referring to the charter, nothing whatever of this sort can be found in it. From the liberty assured to all the king's English subjects, of emigrating to Maryland, an express excep tion is made of "such to whom it shall be expressly forbidden;" nor is there the slightest hint, anywhere in the charter, of anything like toleration or freedom in religion. So far from it, all places of worship are required to be consecrated according to "the ecclesiastical law of England," and their erection and the patronage and advowson of them are among the rights specially conferred upon the proprietary, while both he and the assembly are expressly restricted from making any ordinances or enacting any laws "repugnant or contrary to the laws of England; which certainly would have been the case, at the time the charter was granted, as to any attempt to legalize any form of religious worship other than that of the church of England. Lord

Baltimore, no doubt, intended-and that seems to have been the furthest that he went to secure to such Catholics as emigrated to Maryland the quiet enjoyment of their religious opinions and worship; but there was no such provision inserted in the charter, as the Catholics found to their sorrow, when the time came, as it afterwards did, for enacting penal laws against them: nor -considering the fixed prejudices of the English people, even if his own conscience would have allowed it, which is questionable-would the king have dared to set his seal to an instrument in which the toleration of the Catholic religion was secured, even by implication, and, much less, in express terms.

The

The first colony arrived in Maryland in the spring of 1634. The governor and counselors were Catholics. principal adventurers were Catholic gentlemen of some means. The laboring portion of the colonists were indented servants, among whom were many Protestants. The Catholics had a priest with them, and, no doubt, enjoyed the full exercise of their religion. Indeed, they occasioned not a little alarm and disgust in Puritan Massachusetts, by "setting up mass openly." A like liberty appears to have been practically enjoyed by the Protestant part of the colonists. An early proclamation or ordinance of the governor, based upon a limited power of legislating in that way, conferred by the charter upon the proprietary, prohibited all unseasonable disputations in point of religion, tending to the disturbance of the public peace and quiet of the colony, and to the opening of faction in religion;” and we know that at least one Catholic proprietor was early fined, under this ordinance, for attempting to meddle with the devotions of one of his Protestant servants.

Now, as Roger Williams, as we shall presently see, did not establish himself at Providence till the spring of 1636— two years after the planting of the Maryland colony at St. Mary's-and as the written agreement of Williams's colonists (the original constitution of the Providence Plantations), to submit

only in civil things" to such orders as the major part should enact,” was not entered into until the autumn of 1638, it is plain that Maryland was the first American colony in which a certain degree of toleration in religious matters

was practically realized. But when we come to consider the very narrow and limited extent of that toleration, compared with the full liberty soon after established in Rhode Island; when we notice the very short period for which even this limited toleration existed; and taking into account, also, the fact, that it owed its existence while it lasted, not to the colonists, but to the proprietary; looking at the matter in these lights, the superior claims of Rhode Island will be equally evident.

Owing to a dispute which arose between Lord Baltimore and the Assem

bly, on the question to whom, under the charter, the right belonged of proposing laws, no legislation for the colony received the sanction of that body till 1639. It was then provided, along with other fundamental regulations for the distribution of justice, the punishment of offenses, the payment of debts, and the like, that "holy church, within the province, shall have all her rights and liberties." In thus copying the phraseology of Magna Charta, the question which church (that of England or of Rome) was, under the name of a "holy church," to enjoy the rights and privileges thereto appertaining, was quite dextrously evaded. But however that point might be decided, little hope was left for the Puritan dissenters, of whom both of these churches were equally intolerant; and perhaps this enactment may be regarded as a sort of compromise between the Catholics and the church of England men, while they tolerated each other, to put down, or, rather, to keep out the troublesome and uneasy Puritan nonconformists, who had already began to make their appearance in Virginia, whence it was thought necessary to expel them, two or three years later, under a law expressly enacted for that purpose. But, whatever might have been the aims of the Assembly, the proprietary still persevered in the policy with which he had set out-that of preventing, as far as possible, any religious disputes or agitation, by which the peace and progress of his colony might be disturbed. He judged it necessary, however, to conform to the changed state of feeling in England; and the Puritan party there having triumphed over the king, the colony ceased to have a Catholic governor-that office being conferred by Lord Baltimore upon one William Stone, of Virginia, a zealous

Protestant and Parliamentarian. The offices of "muster-master general” and of "secretary" were also conferred upon Protestants, who had likewise a majority in the council, and perhaps also, by this time, a majority of the colonists. For the protection, however, of the Catholic settlers, an oath was required of the governor, not to molest or discountenance, on religious grounds, any person in the province professing to believe in Jesus Christ, and, in particular, any Roman Catholic; nor to make any difference, on that score, in appointments to office. The policy of the proprietary, and the limited extent to which he carried his ideas of religious liberty, are more precisely indicated in the somewhat overlauded "law concerning religion"—often represented as the corner-stone of toleration in Americawhich he sent out the next year (1649), engrossed on parchment, and to which the Assembly gave its assent. This act begins, in no very tolerant spirit, with enacting death and forfeiture of land and goods, as the punishment of blasphemers and deniers of the doctrine of the trinity. It next denounces fine, whipping, and, for the third offense, banishment, as penalties for the utterance of reproachful speeches against the Virgin Mary or the holy apostles and evangelists. The third section appoints fine, and, if that were not paid, whipping and a public apology, as punishments for applying to any person any reproachful name, or any name in a reproachful manner "relating to matters of religion." Similar penalties are also imposed on profaners of the Lord's day. After this comes the famous section, the only one usually quoted, which, after setting forth that "the enforcing the conscience, in matters of religion, hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence in those commonwealths where it has been practiced," proceeds to enact, "for the more quiet and peaceable government of the province," in the terms of the oath already imposed on the governor, that person, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall be molested or discountenanced on account of his religion, nor interrupted in the free exercise of it, under penalty of fine and imprison

ment.

no

In thus attempting to secure the equal rights of the Catholics, Lord Baltimore, as much, we may believe, from necessi

ty as choice, allowed a wide sweep to Puritan dissent, to which recent events in England had given a powerful impulse-Cromwell and the Independents being already triumphant. He even received into the colony a body of Puritan dissenters recently expelled from Virginia by Governor Berkeley, who established themselves on a plantation which they called Providence, near where now stands the city of Annapolis, the first settlement in the northern part of the province. Nor was it long before these Virginia Puritans, taking advantage of the growth of anti-church feeling among the Protestants of the colony, put themselves forward for the overturn of Lord Baltimore's scheme of toleration; in which object, by the countenance and support of the parliamentary commissioners, by that time at the head of affairs in Virginia, they had a temporary success. Stone was deposed from office; a new governor and council were appointed, and a new Assembly (in 1654) expressly excluded "papists and prelatists" from the benefit of the act of toleration. A civil war followed, between the Catholic and Puritan settlers, not without bloodshed. The Catholics were beaten, the triumphant Protestants put four of their captured opponents to death, and proceeded to sequestrate the estates of the others. The Catholics subsequently recovered their courage, and reëstablished Lord Baltimore's authority at St. Mary's; but Annapolis and the northern portion of the province continued to adhere to the Puritan administration, of which Annapolis had been made the seat.

The restoration of Charles II. restored also the authority of Lord Baltimore over his entire province, and by the effect of that change, the former toleration act again came into force. But, notwithstanding the comprehensiveness of its terms, the Quakers were not suffered to take any advantage of it. They became, in Maryland, as in every other Anglo-American colony, Rhode Island alone excepted, the objects of legislative vengeance. By an act of the Maryland Assembly, preachers of that sect were to be apprehended and whipped "as vagabonds who dissuade the people from complying with military discipline, from holding offices, giving testimony, and serving as jurors." It is insisted, however, by some of the recent writers on the history of Mary

land, that this act was seldom or never put in execution.

As the population of the province increased, the preponderance of the Protestants over the Catholics became still more decisive. The Puritan dissenters gradually dropped their antipathy to the church of England, into which, though as yet there was no regular establishment, they became mostly absorbed. But their hatred of Catholicism did not diminish, and their discontent against the Catholic proprietary evinced itself in repeated outbreaks. At last came the English revolution, of which advantage was taken again to set aside the proprietary government; and though the Baltimore family retained their property in the province, the proprietary administration was only reestablished, at the end of twenty-five years, by the adoption, on the part of the fourth Lord Baltimore, of the Protestant faith.

Meanwhile, the limited system of toleration, introduced by the second Lord Baltimore, had been totally set aside; nor was it, so long as the proprietary government lasted, ever again reestablished. It was from the beginning an exotic in the colony, the plan of the second Lord Baltimore and not of the colonists themselves, and therefore lacking any solid basis to stand upon. One of the first acts of the new Protestant authorities, which assumed the government in the name of William and Mary, was to divide the colony into parishes, and to create a regular ecclesiastical establishment, after the model of the church of England, supported by taxes which all were obliged to pay. Indeed, the descendants and successors of the old Puritans, who had put prelacy and papacy into the same category, had now become such strict churchmen, that it was only with much ado, and by repeated refusals to sanction, on any other terms, their church establishment, that the Assembly was persuaded, by the ministers of William III., to introduce a clause, granting toleration to Protestant dissenters! As to the unfortunate Catholics, they were freely delivered over to sectarian vengeance, embodied under the form of law. Most of the enactments resorted to in Ireland, to put down the Catholics, were imitated in Maryland, without any of the excuses of political danger which the Irish parliament might urge, as the Catholics in Maryland were too few to

be in the slightest degree formidable. The more severe of these enactments were speedily repealed, or modified; but the Catholics still remained disfranchised till after the Revolution.

Under the state constitution, the Catholics of Maryland were admitted to a political equality with the Protestants; but the idea of full freedom of opinion, on religious matters, was very slowly recognized. It is a curious fact, that although the Constitution of the United States expressly prohibits religious tests, yet that, under an old law of Maryland, still in force in the District of Columbia, though repealed as to Maryland itself, no person is admitted to practice as an attorney or counselor in any of the courts of law of the District, who does not first profess his faith, under oath, in the Christian religion.

Having thus sketched the history of religious toleration in Maryland, we turn now to the colony of Rhode Island.

The history of Roger Williams, the father and founder of Providence Plantations, is pretty familiarly known. Born in Wales, and, as well as Calvert, educated at the university of Oxford, he took orders in the English Church; but his Puritan and nonconformist opinions drove him, at the age of thirty-two, to seek refuge in the then newly-planted colony of Massachusetts, where he arrived early in 1631. The church at Salem wished to receive him as successor to one of their teachers, who had died: but, ardent and vehement, and a decided separatist, not hesitating to stigmatize the church of England as anti-Christ, he was too bold and outspoken to suit the founders of the Massachusetts colony, who had not yet quite made up their minds as to the Christian or anti-Christian character of the church of England and their own relation to it. The magistrates having interfered to prevent his reception by the Salem church, as a teacher, Williams retired to the colony of Plymouth, where no such doubts prevailed, and where he "exercised by way of prophecy," that is, as a lay exhorter in contradistinction to an ordained teacher. Two years after, in 1633, he returned again to Salem, and the minister of that church having died, by a sort of surprise upon the magistrates and the other churches, he was elected its sole teacher and pastor. But Williams was too strongly inclined to entertain opinions of his own, and to express

« AnteriorContinuar »