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,
longe diviniori ratione Catholici appellamus ecclesiam Romanam
sacrosanctam._ Calpinus Parvus;--seu Dictionarium Caesaris Calderini
Mirani: _Venetiis_, 1618."
Cicero, _in Catil_: 2. 8.--uses the phrase--"Possessiones sacrosanctae,"
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 sacrosanctae."
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 Caecilius 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."
X. It has been alleged that the clause in the Maryland Charter securing
"God's holy rights and the true Christian religion," is only an
incorporation into Lord Baltimore's instrument, of certain clauses
contained in the early Charters of Virginia. If the reader will refer to
the 1st volume of Henning's Statutes at large, he will find all those
documents in English, but _unaccompanied by the original Latin_. Thus,
we have no means of judging the _accuracy of the translation_, or
_identity of language_ in the Maryland and Virginia instruments.
Adopting, however, for the present, the translation given by Henning, we
find no coincidence of phraseology either to justify the suspicion of a
mere copy, or to subject our charter to the _limitations_ contained in
the Virginia patents. Disabilities are to be construed strictly in law,
and our charter is not to be interpreted by another, but stands on its
own, independent, context and manifest signification.
The first Virginia Charter or Patent was issued to Sir Thomas Gates and
others, April 10th, 1606, in the 4th year of James's English reign.
Among the "Articles, Orders, Instructions," &c., set down for Virginia,
20th Nov., 1606,--(though nothing is said about restrictions in
religion, while the preamble commends the noble work of propagating the
Christian religion among infidel savages,)--is the following
clause:--"And we doe specallie ordaine, charge, and require the
presidents and councills," (of the two Colonies of Virginia,)
"respectively, within their severall limits and precincts, that they
with all diligence, care and respect, doe provide, that the _true word
and service of God and Christian faith_, be preached, planted and used,
not only within every of the said severall colonies and plantations, but
alsoe, as much as they may, among the salvage people which doe or shall
adjoine unto them, or border upon them, _according to the_ DOCTRINE,
RIGHTS, _and_ RELIGION, _now professed and established within our realme
of England_."--_1st Henning_, 69.
The second charter or patent, dated 23d May, 1609, 7th "James I," was
issued to the Treasurer and Company for Virginia, and in its XXIX
section, declares: "And lastly, because the principal effect, which we
can desire or expect of this action, is the conversion and reduction of
the people in those parts unto the _Worship of God and Christian
religion, in which respect we should be loath, that any person be
permitted to pass, that we suspected to affect the superstitions of the
Church of Rome_; we do hereby declare that it is our will and pleasure
that none be permitted to pass in any voyage, from time to time, to be
made unto the said country, but such as shall first have taken the Oath
of Supremacy;" &c., &c.--_1st Henning_, 97.
The third Charter of James the I, in the 9th year of his English reign,
was issued 12th March, 1611-12 to the Treasurer and Company for
Virginia. The XIIth section empowers certain officers to administer the
_Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance_, to "all and every persons which
shall at any time or times hereafter go or pass to said Colony of
Virginia."
The Instructions to Governor Wyatt, of 24th of July, 1621, direct
him:--"_to keep up the Religion of the Church of England, as near as may
be_," &c., &c.--_1st Henning._
All these extracts, it will be observed, contain _limitations_ and
_restrictions_, either explicitly _in favor_ of the English Church, or
_against_ the, so called, "superstitions of the Church of Rome." The
Maryland Charter shows no such narrow clauses, and consequently, is
justly free from any connexion, _in interpretation_, with the Virginia
instruments. Besides this, we do not know that the language of the
original Latin of the Virginia Charters, is the same as ours, and,
therefore, it would be "reasoning in a circle," or, "begging the
question," if we translated the Maryland Charter into the exact language
of the Virginian. The phraseology--"God's holy rights and the true
Christian religion,"--_unlimited in the Maryland Patent_,--was a
distinct assertion of broad equality to all professing to believe in
Jesus Christ. It was not subject to any sectarian restriction, and
formed the basis of religious liberty in Maryland, until it was
undermined during the Puritan intolerance in 1654.