September 26, 1895

“Religious Toleration in Maryland” American Sentinel 10, 38, pp. 297, 298.

ATJ

THERE are two facts that conspire to make the history of religious toleration in Maryland of surpassing interest to the student of American history. One is that the lord proprietary was a Roman Catholic; the other is that Maryland, it is claimed, was the first of the original thirteen colonies to establish religious toleration by statute. ^{1The statute to which reference is here made was passed by the Maryland assembly in 1649, thirteen years after Roger Williams and others who had suffered persecution in Massachusetts, had established, at Providence, as Arnold says, “a pure democracy, which for the first time guarded jealously the rights of conscience by ignoring any power in the body politic to interfere with those matters that alone concern man and his Maker.” It was not, however, until March 14, 1648, six years before the act of toleration was passed in Maryland, that the “Patent for Providence Plantations” was issued, prior to which time the legislation of the colony was without royal sanction.—See “Patent for Providence Plantations,” and foot note to the same, in “Charters and Constitutions,” Vol. 2, p. 1594.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.1

Confronted by the history of centuries of intolerance in other countries, Roman Catholics turn with satisfaction to the history of Maryland, and point to it with pride, as an evidence of the tolerant character of “the church.”AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.2

After exhausting the very meager materials found in the Old World with which to support the papal claim that “the church” is tolerant, Cardinal Gibbons says:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.3

Turning to our own country, it is with no small degree of satisfaction that I point to the State of Maryland as the cradle of civil and religious liberty, and the “land of the sanctuary.” Of the thirteen original American colonies, Maryland was the only one that was settled by Catholics. She was also the only one that spread aloft over her fair lands the banner of liberty of conscience, and that invited the oppressed of other colonies to seek an asylum beneath its shadow. ^{2“Faith of Our Fathers,” p. 272; edition of 1893.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.4

There are, at least, two fatal errors in this paragraph: first, Maryland was not settled exclusively, nor even principally, by Roman Catholics; and second, religious liberty was never established in that colony, either by Catholics or by Protestants. The act of April 21, 1649, was an act of toleration merely, providing that “no person within this province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall be in any ways troubled, molested, or discountenanced, for his or her religion, or in the free exercise thereof.” ^{3“History of the United States,” by Bancroft, Vol. I, Part I, chap. 10, p. 168.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.5

The same act provided that “whatsoever person shall ... deny the Holy Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, shall be punished with death.” And that “whatsoever person or persons shall from henceforth use or utter any reproachful words or speeches concerning the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Saviour, or the holy apostles or evangelists, or any of them, shall in such case for the first offense forfeit to the lord proprietary the sum of five pounds sterling or the value thereof.... And every such offender or offenders for every second offense shall forfeit ten pounds sterling or the value thereof.... And every person or persons before mentioned offending herein the third time, shall for such third offense forfeit all his lands and goods, and be forever banished and expelled out of this province.” ^{4“Archives of Maryland Assembly,” Vol. I, p. 244. See also Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I, part. 1, chap. 10, pp. 168, 169.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.6

It will be readily conceded that this was very far short of religious liberty; it was simply toleration for believers in the Christian religion. It is true it was far in advance of any other colony at that time except Rhode Island, ^{5Roger Williams was expelled from Massachusetts in January, 1636. “Within two years,” says Bancroft, “others fled to his asylum. The land which he occupied was within the territory of the Narragansetts. In March, 1638, an Indian deed from Cabonicue, and Miantonomah made him the undisputed possessor of an extensive domain.”—History of the United States, Vol. I, Part I, chap. 15, p. 235.
This, it should be remembered, was eleven years before the Maryland act of toleration. Moreover, Rhode Island had religious liberty from the first day of its settlement; and five years before the Maryland act of toleration. Williams published and defended in England his views of religious liberty. Bancroft says:—
“The principles which he [Williams] first sustained amid the bickerings of a colonial parish, next in the general court of Massachusetts, and then introduced into the wilds on Narragansett Bay, he found occasion, in 1644, to publish in England, and to defend as the basis of the religious freedom of mankind.”—Id., p. 254.} but it was not religious liberty. In practice it did not secure even toleration to all believers in Jesus Christ. “The Quakers were persecuted in Maryland as badly as in Virginia and Massachusetts.” For example: “In 1658, Joseph Coale and Thomas Thurston, preachers belonging to that body, were treated with great severity by the authorities and compelled to flee the country.” ^{6“History of the United States,” by Edmund Ollier, Vol. I, p. 77; published by the Cassell Publishing Co., New York.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.7

But let us consider briefly the question as to whom the credit belongs for a measure of religious toleration in Maryland.AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.8

As before stated, Maryland was not settled by Roman Catholics but very largely by Protestants. The charter was issued on the twentieth day of June, 1632, to Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore. The following November, Leonard Calvert, brother of the proprietary, sailed from the Isle of Wight with two hundred colonists to effect a settlement in Maryland.AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.9

The vessels, the Ark and the Dove, sailed by way of Fortune Island, Barbados, and St. Christopher’s, and did not reach Maryland until March, 1634. After cruising about in the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, they dropped anchor in St. Mary’s River.AMS September 26, 1895, page 297.10

Leonard Calvert gained the good-will of the natives who were preparing to abandon that particular locality, and purchased from them for some cloth and a few axes, their right to the soil. Bancroft says:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.1

Upon the 27th [of March, 1634], the emigrants, of whom at least three parts of four were Protestants, took quiet possession of the land which the governor first bought. ^{7“History of the United States,” Vol. I, Part I, chap. 10, p. 161.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.2

It is probable that the relative proportion of Catholics and Protestants in Maryland remained about the same, and though the government was in the hands of the lord proprietary, who was a Catholic, it would have been quite impossible for him, even had he desired to do so, to have denied toleration to so large a majority of his subjects. Bancroft says:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.3

In the mixed population of Maryland, where the administration was in the hands of Catholics, and the great majority of the people were Protestants, there was no unanimity of sentiment out of which a domestic constitution could have harmoniously risen. ^{8Id, p. 166.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.4

This was about the time of the conflict in England between the Parliament and Charles I., and Lord Baltimore, about affairs of the colony. Claybourne was still claiming Kent Island, and the Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Puritans, who formed a large proportion of Lord Baltimore’s subjects, were restless under the authority of a Catholic, and were desirous of establishing Protestantism, so-called, as the religion of the colony.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.5

In 1645, a petition was presented to the House of Lords, asking that the government of Maryland might be settled in the hands of Protestants. For some reason this petition was not acted upon, and “the politic Lord Baltimore,” says Bancroft, “had ample time to prepare his own remedies. To appease the Parliament, he removed Greene [the Roman Catholic Governor], and in August, 1648, appointed in his place Wm. Stone, a Protestant of the Church of England.” ^{9Id., p. 167.} A very significant fact in this connection is that Lord Baltimore required Governor Stone to take and subscribe the following oath:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.6

I do further swear I will not by myself, nor any other person, directly trouble, molest, or discountenance any person whatsoever in the said province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ; and, in particular, no Roman Catholic, for or in respect of his or her religion, nor his or her free exercise thereof within said province, so as they be not unfaithful to his said lordship, or molest or conspire against the civil government established under him. ^{10Id., p. 168.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.7

This shows very clearly that instead of being in a position to dictate to others in matters of faith, had he been so disposed, Lord Baltimore was apprehensive lest religious toleration might be denied to his co-religionists; as, indeed, there was a manifest disposition in the colony to do, and as the charter would have warranted, for at that time popery was outlawed in England.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.8

It was in April of the following year that the act, already referred to, establishing religious toleration, was passed. Bancroft says: “To quiet and unite the colony, all the offenses of the late rebellion were effaced by a general amnesty; and, at the instance of the Catholic proprietary, the Protestant governor, Stone, and his council of six, composed equally of Catholics and Protestants, and the representatives of the people of Maryland, of whom [only] five were Catholics, at a general session of the assembly held in April, 1649, placed upon their statute books” ^{11“History of the United States,” Vol. I, Part I, chap. 10, p. 188.} this act of toleration.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.9

It is not our purpose to deny that Lord Baltimore himself was a liberal-minded man; and it is very probable that he entertained charitable feelings toward Protestants. But even had this not been the case, his environment and the circumstances under which he received and held his charter were such that he could not well have taken any other course than that which he did take in securing for his subjects religious toleration. England was at that time Protestant, so-called, and the charter granted Lord Baltimore by Charles I., established in effect the Anglican Church as the church of Maryland. It gave the lord proprietary authority to found “churches and chapels, and places of worship in convenient and suitable places within the premises; and of causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated, according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England.” ^{12“Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and other Organic Laws of the United States,” complied under the order of the United States Senate, by Sen. Ferley Poore, p. 812. The original charter if in Latin, but an excellent translation of a portion of it may be found on page 72 or “The Relation of Religion to Civil Government,” published by Putnam’s Sons, New York.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.10

Speaking of this phase of the charter, Bancroft says: “Christianity, as professed by the Church of England, was established [by the charter]; but the patronage and advowsons of churches were vested in the proprietary; and, as there was not an English statute on religion in which America was specially named, silence left room for the settlement of religious affairs by the colony.” ^{13“History of the United States,” Vol. I, Part I, chap. 10, p. 158.} But it would have been in flagrant violation of the charter to have established Roman Catholicism, for an express provision of that instrument was that all acts concerning religious establishments were to be “according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England.”AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.11

It will be seen at once that it was quite out of the question for Lord Baltimore to establish the Catholic religion in Maryland; ^{14The “American Cyclopedia,” article “Calvert,” says: “It does not appear that Lord Baltimore, or any of the settlers, had an intention on founding the colony of proclaiming absolute religious freedom, and one of the first acts of the assembly of 1639 was to make the Roman Catholic religion the creed of the State.” We have not verified this statement, but the assembly of 1640 declared that the “holy church, within this province, shall have and enjoy all her rights, liberties, and franchises, wholly and without blemish.” See Bancroft’s “History of the United States,” Vol. I, Part I, chap. 10.} he did the only thing that was possible for him to do under the circumstances to secure even toleration for those of his own faith: he established religious toleration for all who professed faith in Christ; and the fact that representative Catholics appeal to the history of Maryland, in proof of the tolerant spirit of Catholicism, demonstrates the paucity of such evidence.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.12

But even it all that is claimed for Maryland were true, it would by no means establish the claim that is made in behalf of Rome. Cardinal Gibbons himself states the principle which dominates Rome everywhere. He says:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.13

Many Protestants seem to be very much disturbed by some such argument as this: Catholics are very ready now to proclaim freedom of conscience, because they are in the minority. When they once succeed in getting the upper hand in numbers and power, they will destroy this freedom, because their faith teaches them to tolerate no doctrine other than the Catholic. It is, then, a matter of absolute necessity for us that they should never be allowed to get this advantage.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.14

Now, in all this, there is a great mistake, which comes from not knowing the Catholic doctrine in its fullness. I shall not lay it down myself, lest it seem to have been gotten up for the occasion. I shall quote the great theologian Becanus, who taught the doctrine of the schools of Catholic theology at the time when the struggle was hottest between Catholicity and Protestantism. He says that religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler when it would do more harm to the State or to the community to repress it.... This is true Catholic teaching on this point, according to Becanus and all Catholic theologians. ^{15“Faith of Our Fathers,” pp. 268, 269.}AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.15

This is indeed, as the cardinal states, “the true Catholic teaching upon this point,” and it ought to be universally recognized as such by Protestants. When Rome grants toleration she does not do it as a matter of principle, but as a matter of policy; and as a matter of policy, partial religious toleration was established in Maryland.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.16

“The ‘Christian Statesman’s’ Unchristian Intolerance” American Sentinel 10, 38, pp. 298, 299.

ATJ

THE Christian Statesman, as might be expected, is out with a defense of the prosecution of Seventh-day Adventists. It has been moved to this by the stinging criticisms of intolerance made by such papers as the New York Tribune and the Christian Intelligencer.AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.1

The Statesman asserts that “not a single individual in any State of the Union has been prosecuted for keeping the seventh day as the Sabbath.” We would like the Statesman to reconcile this assertion with the fact that in the neighborhoods where Adventists have been prosecuted, only Adventists have been interfered with. We have repeatedly published this statement and given the facts, stating what kinds of work were done, and just where done; and so far from being denied, these facts have been recognized by others, and have been published to the world by others; not from what we have said, but from their own personal knowledge. The Republican, of Dayton, Tenn., has published such facts. Ex-Senator Slaughter, of Tennessee, has published to the world in the Nashville American, over his own signature, the statement that “steamboats, railroads, street-car lines, hotels, livery-stables, hackmen, and other money-making concerns can continue their various vocations without the least fear of molestation by officers of the law, whilst another class of true and good citizens must be persecuted for doing what others are promiscuously allowed to do.”AMS September 26, 1895, page 298.2

The Statesman also asserts that “no man’s conscience requires him to work on Sunday.” It would be difficult to make a more erroneous statement. The Statesman ought to know, for it has had opportunity to know, the position of Seventh-day Adventists upon this question. Seventh-day Adventists regard the Sunday institution as a rival of the true Sabbath; it is the badge or mark of pagan and papal apostasy, and rebellion against the Creator of the heavens and the earth. For this reason they cannot pay even outward regard to it. They look upon the demand that they shall keep Sunday as exactly parallel to the decree of King Nebuchadnezzar requiring the three Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, to bow down with the multitude before the great image set up in the plain of Dura.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.1

It is argued, however, that “the Adventists are left to observe the seventh day,” and that “they are not required to keep Sunday religiously.” Neither were the three Hebrews forbidden to worship the true God; nor were they required to pay more than outward and formal respect to the great image. They might have bowed before the image at the sound of the music and then prayed to the God of heaven; but to all beholders they would have appeared to worship the image, God vindicated them in their refusal to even seem to countenance idolatry.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.2

It is true that Adventists are not forbidden to rest upon the seventh day, neither are they required to perform upon the first day any act which is of itself religious; but rest is itself a religious act in such a case, just as bowing before the image, under the circumstances, would have been a religious act on the part of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Actions speak louder than words, and by working upon the seventh day, and resting upon Sunday, the Sunday-keeper testifies more loudly than he could by words that the seventh day is not the Sabbath, and that Sunday is the sabbath. In like manner by resting upon the seventh day and working upon the first day, the Sabbatarian testifies that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and that the first day is not. This the Christian Statesman would prohibit by statute, thus curtailing the liberty of the Sabbath-keeper to teach by his example that which he believes is the truth; so that not only do Sunday “laws” require of the Sabbatarian a service which he cannot conscientiously render, but they forbid him to render a service, in the way of testifying to the truth, which he feels in conscience bound to render.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.3

It does not follow from this that the Sabbatarian should be unnecessarily offensive in his Sunday work; but he should treat the day as a secular day, doing quietly and in an orderly manner his accustomed work, just as Daniel, being accustomed to pray three times a day with his window open toward Jerusalem, continued that practice when he knew that the writing had been signed forbidding any man to ask any petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of the king only. His act was not uncivil, nor was it anything that could possibly be styled a disturbance of the peace before the king’s decree was issued; neither was it anything that ought to have disturbed anyone after the decree was issued; and yet as a matter of fact, it did very seriously disturb Daniel’s enemies; not because it was uncivil or because it injured them in any way, but because their intolerant feelings could not brook such violation of the king’s decree, when in conflict with their ideas of propriety. And it is for the same reason that Sunday work by Sabbatarians so powerfully disturbs Sunday-keepers; it is because it is obnoxious to their intolerant feelings. They cannot brook it because they feel that it is improper, and because fortified by the knowledge that there is a statute against it, they cultivate that feeling until it becomes a passion with them.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.4

“Scriptural Precedent for It” American Sentinel 10, 38, p. 299.

ATJ

THE Outlook gives an account of a communion service in Japan at which neither bread nor wine were used; sponge cake taking the place of the bread, and tea being substituted for wine; but those who partook felt that “they obeyed the command of our Lord.” The Outlook remarks:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.1

This is parallel to the question which might arise in an arctic region. For ourselves, we have no doubt that Jesus baptized by immersion, but that would be manifestly impossible in a frigid zone. Do not these facts indicate that the virtue is not in the thing used, or in the form in which a rite is administered, but in the fact that it brings to mind the person and teaching of the Saviour himself? We think few would presume to say that the cake and tea were not as holy and acceptable as the bread and the wine, and a no larger would require baptism by immersion in the frigid zone. Not on the rite, but on the truth symbolized, the Master would have the emphasis placed.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.2

The Examiner (Baptist) takes exception to this view of the case, and shows very conclusively that there is nothing to prevent immersion even in the coldest countries inhabited by man. It also goes further and shows that both bread and wine are easily obtainable in Japan, and that hence there was no occasion for substituting sponge cake and tea, as was done in the instance referred to by the Outlook.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.3

But is there any greater impropriety in substituting sponge cake and tea for bread and wine in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, or in substituting sprinkling for immersion in baptism, than there is in substituting the first day of the week for the seventh in the matter of Sabbath observance? The fact is that the practice of substituting something that the Lord has not commanded for that which he was commanded, is altogether wrong. However, the practice is very ancient, and is regarded by some as even venerable.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.4

The first one so far as we know to offer a substitute, was Cain, who, instead of bringing a lamb as an offering, as required by the Lord, substituted the fruits of the ground. Another case of substitution is recorded in the 10th chapter of Leviticus, where we read that “Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.”AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.5

Thus it is seen that there is precedent even in the Scriptures for offering to the Lord something that he has not commanded instead of that which he has commanded. These cases are not likely to be appealed to, however, in support of the practice, as it is very evident that such substitution was not pleasing to the Lord then; and there is no reason to believe that it is any more pleasing to him now.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.6

“Are Methodists Consistent?” American Sentinel 10, 38, pp. 299, 300.

ATJ

THE Methodist missionaries, expelled from the Caroline Islands some years ago by the Spanish authorities, are demanding, through the State Department at Washington, the privilege of returning to the Islands. It is stated that the Secretary of State will shortly demand that the missionaries be permitted to return. Whether this will be granted or not remains to be seen; but if they are not permitted to return, it is stated definitely that Secretary Olney will take “most vigorous measures to bring about obedience.”AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.1

Our sympathies in this matter are wholly with the Methodist missionaries. There ought to be no part of the world where any man who conducts himself civilly, could not go and teach whatever religious views he might wish to teach, in a quiet and civil manner, to as many as would listen to him, without molestation; neither ought there to be any portion of the world in which every man could not practice freely in accordance with his faith, as long as in so doing he did not interfere with the equal rights of his fellow-men.AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.2

But we fail to see how Methodists can consistently demand that they shall be permitted to teach and to practice contrary to the law of the Caroline Islands. We believe that the Methodists in this country advocate the idea that Seventh-day Adventists “should obey the civil law until it is repealed, whether right or wrong;” and that they should not array themselves against the “laws” which require the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. This being their position here, what right have they to demand that they shall be permitted to teach and practice contrary to the statute-intrenched religion of the Caroline Islands?AMS September 26, 1895, page 299.3

The fact is, forever, that neither Methodists nor any other denomination obey the civil statutes which are contrary to their religious faith and practice. Methodists are right in insisting upon their right to return to the Caroline Islands, but they are wrong in insisting that Adventists ought to obey Sunday laws until they are repealed. The enforcement of Sunday laws in this country is exactly the same in principle as the enforcement of the laws of the Caroline Islands against the teaching and practice of the Methodists. It is just as legitimate and just as much the province of government to require Methodists to take off their hats to the host (a piece of bread), as it is borne through the streets, as it is to require all men to render homage to the Sunday institution by refraining from work upon that day.AMS September 26, 1895, page 300.1

“Note” American Sentinel 10, 38, p. 303.

ATJ

AN illustration is not an argument. But this fact is overlooked by certain ones who are trying to demonstrate the necessity for Sunday-rest laws by a diagram showing the human system in a continuous physical and mental decline through the week from Monday morning to Saturday night, and recovering its lost force at a single bond by keeping Sunday. The thing works so nicely by diagram that it seems quite unnecessary to cite actual experience, past or present, for further proof. But what about the traditional “blue Monday” with which the housewife is so commonly afflicted? It is quite a common impression, also, that more business is transacted on Saturday than any other day of the week, which does not quite harmonize with the supposed state of things as represented by the little diagram. We would suggest that if the diagram be changed so as to represent a downward plunge of the physical and mental faculties on Sunday, with a gradual rise throughout the week, it would accord much more nearly with the facts.AMS September 26, 1895, page 303.1

“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 38, p. 304.

ATJ

AND now it is in Montana that the dragon of religious persecution rears one of his hydra heads. August 3, in Butte, a Hebrew was arrested for selling goods without a license, and being too poor to pay his fine, was put into the chain-gang to work it out. Refusing to work on the Sabbath (Saturday), he was put into a dungeon, into which water was pumped so that he could not sit down. Two Seventh-day Adventists called on the mayor to learn the reasons for such treatment, and were told that it did not matter whether a man kept the seventh day or not, if he was in the chain-gang and refused to work on Saturday, he would have to take the consequences. This only shows very clearly that religious intolerance in this country is not sectional, and will be just as bad in those parts supposed to be possessed of a liberal spirit, as in any others.AMS September 26, 1895, page 304.1

ACCORDING to recent advices, Turkish atrocities still continue in Armenia. The purpose of this modern persecution is thus stated by a correspondent of the New York World:—AMS September 26, 1895, page 304.2

Ask yourselves if the Christian world is to sit idly by and witness this crusade of persecution which will not end until 2,000,000 Armenian Christians have been wiped out—wiped out because they will not abandon Christianity and worship in the Moslem mosques of the Turks.AMS September 26, 1895, page 304.3

It is impossible to describe the outrages committed by the Kurds and Turkish soldiers. To robbery, arson, torture and murder in the most fiendish forms is added still more revolting crimes against girls and women. Not one is safe, and but few have escaped insult and violence at the hands of Turkish hirelings.AMS September 26, 1895, page 304.4

The Armenian persecution is due to the same spirit of bigotry and intolerance that in the Dark Ages manifested itself in the horrors of the Inquisition and the Albigensean and Waldensean crusades; and it is the same spirit that is to-day manifesting itself in the persecution of Sabbatarians by means of Sunday statutes. The Armenians are slaughtered because they will not “worship in the Moslem mosques of the Turks.” The seventh-day Christians of the world are fined, imprisoned, and driven in chain-gangs because they will not honor the false sabbath of their “Protestant” neighbors. The difference between persecuting to the death and persecuting to the chain-gang, is in degree only; the principle is the same.AMS September 26, 1895, page 304.5