Newspaper Page Text
2 (388) THE
Maryland Charter wth the Avalon Charter or
they believe that George Calvert was already a
Catholic when this charter was issued.
I pass therefore to an examination of the Maryland
Charter and I shall copy word for word
me part 01 tne clause winch is the only one having
any bearing on religion. "Part of IV" and
furthermore the Patronages and Advowsons of
all churches which (with the increasing worship
the religions of Christ) within the said region,
islands, islets and limits aforesaid, hereafter
shall happen to be built; together with license
and faculty of erecting and founding churches,
chapels and places of worship, in convenient and
suitable places, within the premises and causing
the same to be dedicated and consecrated according
to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of
England; with all and singular such and as ample
rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights
and temporal franchises whatsoever, as well bv
sea as by land, within the region, island, islets
and limits aforesaid, to be had, exercised, used
and enjoyed, as and bishop of Durham, within
the bishoprick or county palatine of Durham."
I honestly confess that when I found and carefully
read the first time the famous clause, I was
greatly puzzled and later I could not refrain
from smiling. I was at first puzzled because I
read again and again the famous clause and I
could not see anything that could possibly be construed
into meaning religious toleration.
I read the words, I pondered their meaning
and examined the whole clause thoroughly from
beginning to end and in its relation to the rest
of the document but I could see nothing, absolutely
nothing, meaning religious toleration and
yet there are Roman Catholic writers by hundreds
and not a few Protestants historians who
have found in the Maryland Charter the glorious
discovery of religious toleration. Later I could
not neip smiling because I saw and was able to
understand why Catholics believe that the clause
quoted above contains a hidden meaning. Catholic
writers, particularly if they are Jesuits are
very peculiar in their viewB. Their traditional
training in what is known the world over as
Jesuitism; their constant recourse to mental reservations
cause a Jesuit writer never to say
clearly what he really means and never to understand
plainly the sayings of others in their
natural and spontaneous meanings. A Jesuit is
able to demonstrate in many ways and with reasons
entirely satisfactory and convincing to himself
that back of the no which he wrote and you
read there is a plain hidden yes which you have
never seen and vice versa.
Any one who takes into account the fact that
the Church of Enerland of that rutrind wdo nnf
Roman Catholic but Protestant Episcopal; any
one who knows that James the first was a strong
adherent of Episcopacy, will understand at once
that by the words, "according to the ecclesiastical
laws of our kingdom of England,'' the king
meant exactly the very same religion of England
but to the Jesuit writer these words mean nothing
less than the Roman Catholic religion. Let
me copy the very words pages 237 and 238, the
second part of the clause that those houses of
worship should "be dedicated and consecrated
according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom
of England." These words contained no
allusion to Protestantism or Anglicanism either
in form or substance, though the Anglicanism
of the day might have adopted such a formula.
Elizabeth for instant Vi?/1 ~v. i?*
? ??v. uovu i/iiio |/iii aac, uui
she took care to make it quite clear in the context
that it wat not the Church of England nor
the ecclesiastical laws, as such, of which she was
speaking but the ecclesiastical laws of the rites
and doctrines "nowe used and receyved in the
Churche of Englande, now commonly use in the
1
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE S<
sayd Churche of Englande." "now receyved and
allowed in the sayd Churche of England." Elizabeth
and every body else knew perfectly well
the difference between "ecclesiastical laws of our
kingdom" and the ecclesiastical laws of a qualified
and novel Anglicanism. The "Church of
England" as a simple and magnificient title,
had passed out of use, pari passu with the importation
of t]l? T1PW rollmrvr. 1J ' "
.Aiciiue iieuner in ionn
nor in .substance was Lord Baltimore to be understood
as implying or connoting Protestantism,
when he undertook to have churches "dedicated
and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical
laws of our Kingdom of England." Thus would
the Jesuit reason out this matter. But some of
my readers may ask what is the historical ground
on which to base such a conclusion as that of
the Jesuit? After having read through all the
arguments and statements of the Jesuit historian,
I am firmly and honestly convinced that
there is no other historical ground except the
famous mental reservation of the Jesuits
on which to reach such a conclusion. The
Jesuit historian says George Calvert was then a
Catholic and therefore he could not accept those
words unless he did so with a mental reservation
>r by giving to them a Catholic interpretation.
But it was to Cecil Calvert, the second
Lord Baltimore, that the Maryland Charter was
granted since George Calvert the first Lord Baltimore
was alreadv Tho J
j v.vuv?. a uatc U1 HIS UCttlll
was April 15, 1632, and the Maryland Charter
was issued June 20, 1632.
Cecil Calvert causes to vanish away the whole
structure of the Jesuit historian. Who ought to
know better than Cecil Calvert the true meaning
of that clause? If therefore there were any
statements made by Cecil Calvert about this matter,
these statements will settle once for all this
whole question. Fortunately there still exist
some private instructions given by Cecil Calvert
to his brother Leonard Calvert, the first governer
of the Colony, which clearly imply that the
clause "according to the ecclesiastical laws of
our kingdom of England" mean nothing but the
Protestant Episcopal Church of England of that
period. The instructions were given November
13, 1833 by the Right Hon. Cecilius Lord Baltimore
etc., unto his well-beloved brother, Leonard
Calvert, Esq., etc.
The instructions are such that the Jesuit historian
qualifies them by these words, page 260
4 4 Baltimore's order against Roman Catholicism.''
I shall give some of the words of Lord Baltimore:
4 4 all acts of Roman Catholic Religion to be done
as privily as may be and that they instruct all
the Roman Catholics to be silent upon all occctsions
of discourse concerning matters of religion.
And this is to be observed at land as well as at
sea.''
To the impartial reader these private instructions
can only be explained by believing that the
claus has no other meaning than to uphold Episcdpacy
and to make it clear and evident that the
Roman Catholic religion ought not to be practiced
publicly but only 4 4 as privily as may be
1 J "
u i luuu as weu as at sea.
Now I remind my readers that these instructions
were given by Cecilius Calvert himself and
were of a private and somewhat secret nature, so
they must reveal the truth and complete understanding
of the matter better than anything
else.
Summing up the whole matter, I assert without
hesitation that in the Avnlnn nvio^+n- ? --
-?? ?? ? wvM vuajl i/vi tllCl C US
nothing meaning religious tolerance and in case
there were anything the glory of it belongs to a
Protestant gentleman, that in the Maryland
Charter, the famous clause which bears on religion
is such that if we interpret it according to
the natural meaning of the words and according
to common sense, this clause does not mean any
3UTH [ March 27, 1912.
thing but the practice of Episcopacy and if we
wish to make some flights of the imagination as
the Jesuit historian has done and take refuge in
mental reservation then this clause means the
practice of the Roman Pnthnlio ??1? l? J. r?
V/UW1VUV iciiglUU UUL 111
neither case can it by any stretch of the imagination
be interpreted to mean religious tolerance.
I can not recover from my astonishment even
now* that there are American historians not a
few, who pretend to have discovered religious
tolerance in the Maryland Charter. The only explanation
I can give is that either they never
have read carefully the original charter or that
knowing the Assembly of Freemen passed resolutions
were based on tlis Charter.
The Assembly of Freemen in accordance with
oine instructions given by Cecilius Calvert and
his private secretary, John Lewger, passed some
resolutions that proclaim plainly not tolerance,
much less religious freedom indeed which for that
time and those circumstances was a clorinns ?nrl
wonderful achievement. But was this granting
of religious tolerance accomplished by Catholic
influence, as such, or rather by Protestant votes
and Protestant influence as such?
.My readers will see in the next article what
true history as revealed by the original documents
has to say about this matter.
A SCRIPTURE STUDY.
BY REV. S. J. CARTLEDGE.
Did Paul resist, and therefore grieve, the Holy
Ghost, in going to Jerusalem at the close of his
third missionary journey? So far as my reading
goes, this question is uniformly answered in
the negative. Is this answer correct?
For some reason which does not appear in the
record, Paul had set his heart on this journey.
See Acts 20:16 and 22. This latter verse may
mean, "constrained by the Holy Spirit," or
"constrained in his own spirit." In the light
of subsequent statements which cannot easily be
harmonized with the former, I believe the latter
to be the true meaning.
The Spirit repeatedly warns him of the danger'of
going to Jerusalem, 2:23; as his manner
is, dealing with him directly, before using other
agents and instrumentalities. Now a servant of
God must not run from danger provided he encounters
it in the path of duty, but not even an
apostle is permitted to run into danger needlessly.
But notwithstanding these repeated warnings,
Paul presses on toward Jerusalem. At Tyre he
finds certain disciples, "who say to him through
the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem,"
21:4. This statement, according to every
writer I have seen, means that the Spirit had
simply revealed to these disciples the fact of
dangers awaiting the apostle, and on the ground
of his revelation they draw their own conclusion,
and advise accordingly. B\it will the words
bear this meaning? Besides, why reveal to these
disciples the fact of danger, if not for the purpose
of securing their assistance in persuading
Paul to abandon this journey? Does it not begin
tg appear that the Spirit did not approve of his
journey, and having failed by direct dealing to
dissaude him from prosecuting* it further, he now
begins to deal with him through these Tyrian
disciples?
still lie presses on, and arrives at Caesarea,
where the prophet Agabus, just from Jerusalem,
assures him, on the authority of the Holy
Ghost, that on reaching Jerusalem he shall he
arrested and bound by the Jews, and delivered
into the hands of the Gentiles. 21: 8-11. With
characteristic heroism he declares his readiness
not only to he bound but also to die at Jerusa