MARYLAND'S ACT OF TOLERATION.
By John D. Bradley
Who Were Responsible for It?
THE recent declaration at a very public Roman Catholic celebration in Washington, by the president of the Board of Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Mr. Henry B. F. Macfarland, in which he participated, that "Roman Catholics, in the Maryland Assembly of 1649, passed the act for religious freedom, then almost unique," and that the Roman Catholics "who set up the standard of spiritual liberty in Maryland deserve to be praised with the Pilgrims of Plymouth," has not passed unchallenged. In the Washington Post, of December 5, appeared a communication from Chase Roys, in which he wrote as follows: Several good citizens would like to know where Mr. Macfarland finds his authority for the statement that the "Roman Catholics, in the Maryland Assembly of 1649, passed the act for religious freedom," etc. First, George Bancroft, author of several excellent histories of the United States, says in effect that there never was any Roman Catholic colony in Maryland—that "the thirteen colonies were all Protestant; even in Maryland the Roman Catholics formed scarcely an eighth, perhaps not more than a twelfth, part of the population. Their presence in other provinces, except Pennsylvania, was hardly perceptible. . . . America was most thoroughly a Protestant country." The Jesuit Father White says (Vol. III, p. 362, 7th series of the Jesuit work, "Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus"), when writing from the colony to the head of the order in England, thus: "In a country like this, newly planted, and depending wholly upon England for its subsistence, where there is not, nor can be, until England is re-united to the [Roman Catholic] church, any ecclesiastical discipline established by law of the province, or granted by the prince, nor any provincial synod, nor spiritual courts created, nor the canon law accepted, nor ordinary or other ecclesiastical person admitted [as such], nor the Catholic religion publicly allowed; and, whereas, three parts of the people, or four, at least, are heretics [Protestants]," etc. Could a colony which was seven-eighths Protestant be properly called a Roman Catholic colony? Edward D. Neill, a historian of that day, says that in 1649 an Act of Toleration was passed by the Maryland Assembly, which consisted of thirteen persons—nine Protestants and four Roman Catholics—and he gives the names of them all in his work, "Founders of Maryland." He further says that the nine Protestants voted for the act of toleration and the four Roman Catholics against it, and that the next year, when they again met, the four Roman Catholic members objected to taking the usual oath, on account of the act of toleration. Three of them finally did take the oath, but the fourth one, Thomas Mathews, refused, was censured, and expelled. Neill gives the reason ("Founders of Maryland," p. 120) why the papists opposed the "act of toleration." He says: "This act was contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome, since it was the recognition of Christians who rejected the pope." It is, nevertheless, true that Lord Baltimore did urge the Maryland Assembly to pass an act of religious toleration, but he was driven to this extremity by the English Parliament, which was at that time intensely Protestant. Baltimore had appointed a Roman Catholic lieutenant-governor to govern the colony while he, Baltimore, was absent in England. The colonists took alarm at this act, and petitioned Parliament to take care that the American colonies should be kept under Protestant control. To leave no excuse to Parliament for acting on this petition, and while it was still pending—a period of some two years or more—Lord Baltimore had the Assembly of Maryland pass the famous Act of Religious Toleration. He also dismissed Governor Greene, and installed Stone, a Protestant, as governor, apparently for the same reason. This was two years after a much more liberal act had been passed by Rhode Island. "Fiat justitia ruat coelum." And on December 12, appeared this communication in the Post, from W. M. Yale: Editor Post: I was present at the open-air meeting in connection with the dedicatory services of Carroll Hall, and heard Commissioner Macfarland's address, in which he gave the Roman Catholic members of the Maryland Assembly credit for the passage of the Toleration Act of 1649. I was very much surprised at his remarks at the time, and was pleased to note this reply to them by Mr. Chase Roys. This lets a little daylight in on the situation, and clears the question of much of its fog. It is up to Mr. Macfarland now to explain how he came to make the statements referred to, and what was the source of his information. Cardinal Gibbons has quite clearly expressed the general attitude of the Catholic Church upon the question of universal religious freedom, in his work, "The Faith of Our Fathers." On page 269 of this work is the following: "Religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler when it would do more harm to the state or the community to repress it. This is the true Catholic teaching on this point, according to Becanus, and all Catholic theologians." The Catholic Church tolerates religious liberty under certain circumstances, but it does not teach it as a right to be universally enjoyed. Like many other churches, when oppressed or denied justice and equal rights, the Catholic Church has plead for the freedom of its own people. But this is not the basis of true religious liberty. He who stands for this must plead not simply for the right of one class, but for the right of all classes, to choose their own religion and to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. This, and this only, is genuine religious liberty. Will Mr. Macfarland please explain his public utterances respecting this matter on the occasion referred to? These communications are in the interests of truth, both as respects the historic facts regarding the enactment of the Maryland Act of Toleration, and the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to religious liberty. Of course, Mr. Macfarland will not deign to explain his utterances to these inquirers. The declaration is not a desire to pervert history, but a desire, which seems to be a weakness of many public men in these days, to please Roman Catholics, and, therefore, on occasion, to accept their version of certain matters of history affecting Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church. There are many other people besides Roman Catholics, and even some who think they are thoroughly grounded in the principles of religious liberty, and who profess to be its representatives and advocates, who are not entirely without the need of such admonition as is given in the above communication, as to what is genuine religious liberty.