but as two sovereignties;32 the instruc-
tions for self-government aboard the
Ark and the Dove and in the new land
itself were enforced in a spirit of com-
plete fairness from 1634 to 1649.33
Several religious disputes of a rela-
tively minor nature occurred during the
early years of the settlement. In 1638
William Lewis, a Catholic, was found
guilty of proselyting by force of his
authority over his Protestant servants.
In 1641 Thomas Gerard, also a Cath-
olic, was charged and convicted of
interfering with Protestant church serv-
ices. Both Lewis and Gerard were fined
500 pounds of tobacco. There was a
prolonged dispute during the late 1630's
and after between Lord Baltimore (II)
and the Jesuit Order.34 Thomas Cop-
ley, a Jesuit, instituted in 1637 a delib-
erate attempt to rid the colony of
numerous "heretics" with which it was
"infested," and backed a rigid program
to exclude Anglicans from political
office.35
A few historians have pointed to an
obscure ordinance enacted in 1639 as
the first piece of religious tolerance leg-
islation in Maryland and possibly in the
United States. Known variously as the
"Ordinance of 1639" or the "Act for
Church Liberties,"30 it was passed by
the annual assembly, and acted to dis-
tinguish church from state. Both the
church and the colonists were to have
32 T. hanley, their rights and lib-
erties 121 (1959).
33 Johnson, supra note 15 at 6. For a de-
cidedly anti-Catholic view of Roman Catholic
enforcement, see B. brown, early religious
history of maryland (1876).
34 Johnson, supra note 15 at 2.
35 C. smith, religion under the barons
of baltimore 204-12 (1899). Mr. Smith
calls Mr. Copley "Maryland's evil genius."
36 allen, supra note 17 at 42.
20
|
religious "rights and privileges."37
There is ample evidence that the tradi-
tion which underlay the 1639 ordinance
persisted, at least among Maryland
Catholics, up to the time of the consti-
tutional conventions of the 1780's.38
Much has been written and a great
deal said about the famous "Toleration
Act of 1649," more correctly entitled
"An Act Concerning Religion." It has
been alternately labeled as "one of the
proudest memorials of our colonial his-
tory"39 and "really a most disgraceful
piece of intolerance."40 The divergence
of opinion may be readily understood
when one examines the construction and
content of the Act. It contained five
sections. The first provided for punish-
ment by death and confiscation of prop-
erty of any person who should deny the
divine nature of the Trinity or utter
reproachful words concerning it. Under
the second and third sections those who
blasphemed Catholics were subject to
fine, whipping and imprisonment. The
same punishment was decreed by the
fourth clause against profaners of the
Sabbath Day. However, the fifth section
was of an entirely different tone, pro-
viding in part:
"Whereas, the enforcing of the
conscience in matters of religion
hath frequently fallen out to be of
dangerous consequences in those
commonwealths where it hath been
practised, and for the more quiet
and peaceable government of this
Province and the better to preserve
mutual love and amity amongst
the Inhabitants thereof: Be it
37 1 archives of maryland 82-83 (1883).
38 hanley, supra note 32 at 123. See also
C. hall, the lords baltimore and the
maryland palatinate 67 (1902).
39 hall, id. at 66.
40 smith, supra note 35 at 319.
|
