Newspaper Page Text
March 27, 1912. ] THE
there would be no place for him in a modern
hospital; but for the sin-sick soul, he could prescribe
the only known remedy, the only remedy
to-day, as it was two thousand years ago. He
could point to him, whose name is the only name
"under heaven, given among men, whereby we
must be saved." This suggests one striking
difference between the Bible and all other books,
the world never outgrows it. Changing conditions,
political, social, or industrial, do not affect
the value of its teachings, or render them out of
date. The human race, as it has advanced, has
constantly left its text books behind it. Fancy
using in a school to-day a text-book on geography
or astronomy, or pnysics, or physiology, written
two thousand years ago. Yet the Bible, written
in times and under conditions widely different
from those of to-day, is exercising an ever-increasing
influence. Not only is it adapted to all
times, but to all classes and conditions of men as
well; the learned and the ignorant, the rude and
the cultured. A child can learn from it the way
of salvation, the man of keenest intellect will
find in it that which will tax his powers. Of
this marvelous adaptation to all times and all
conditions of men, only one rational explanation
can be given: the Bible is the inspired Word
of God.
NEW LIGHT ON AN ACCEPTED FABLE;
or RF.T.TflTOTTS T.ThVPTV TV
AMERICA.
PART IV.
BY .JUAN ORTS GONZALEZ.
My readers have already seen that there is
nothing in either the Avalon or the Maryland
Charter which could mean religious freedom in
Maryland. But are there any laws passed by the
Assembly of Freemen of Maryland which grant
religious tolerance? Yes; there are several acts
passed by the Freemen of the first Assembly,
1638 to 1649, and these clearly proclaim religious
freedom to a certain extent.
Who are the men whom we may hold accountable
for these laws and on whom the responsibility
for them rests? There are three ways in
which the responsibility for these laws may. be
settled: First, Lord Baltimore (Cecilius) himself
may be responsible for them; second, the
responsibility may r:st on his private secretary,
Rev. John Lewger, who was the constant adviser
both of the second Lord Baltimore and his
brother, Leonard Calvert, the governor, or third,
the Assembly of Freemen may have been the
prime movers in making these laws.
I believe I am entirely fair in including these
three factors and these three only.
I believe also that Catholics, more than any
others, will admit that I present the question in
the most favorable aspect for them. If there are
but these three factors, Lord Baltimore (Cecilius),
Rev. John Lewger, and the Freemen then
"" uue can reasonaDiy aouDt wnen uatnoiics say
that religious freedom in America was a Catholic
achievement since Lord Baltimore was a Catholic,
Rev. John Lewger was also a Catholic and
the majority of the Freemen were unquestionably
Catholics.
I must confess that from President Taft to
Cardinal Gibbons there is no trustworthy public
man or respectable American or English historian
who does not accept as correct and based
?n historictl facts the claims of Catholics in this
matter.
J have never seen a tale so well fabricated, so
widely spread and so candidly believed as the
t;ile about the origin of religious freedom in
Maryland. Catholics can quote by scores, historians
in their behalf.
No; I shall not discuss this matter by quoting
PRESBYTERIAN OF T N E SO
the names of the historians. A fable might have
been invented by one writer, reproduced servilely
by hundreds and believed candidly by millions,
but neither the candid faith of millions
nor the servile reproduction of hundreds give
any credit to the fable. In historical subjects
the names of the writers and their number count
for nothing, but the facts contained in the original
documents are of suDreme imDortance and
to these we must give consideration and credibility
in the discussion of this question.
Suppose that neither Lord Baltimore nor Rev.
John Lewger were truly and really Catholics
and that they were not in accordance with the
Roman Catholic Hierarchy, on the contrary suppose
that they, although nominally Catholics
were really at heart Protestants and so plainly
Protstants that they disregarded absolutely and
constantly the Roman Catholic Hierarchy,
slighted the claims of the Roman Catholic
Church, provoked the anger of the Jesuits and
disregarded the Pope and the Hierarchy. Then
Catholics have not the right to charge this affair
tn flfltllAlipiom SnnnAoa m/imntion T
|/VOVj XX1V1 CU T V/l J mat JL littll
?*ove that the majority who voted and passed
these laws was composed largely of Protestants,
yet more suppose that the real Catholics protested
against these laws and demanded of Lord
Baltimore that he refuse his approval, that the
Roman Catholic Hierarchy denounced these laws
as heretical and made by heretics, then the
glory of this achievement belongs rather to
Protestants than to Romanism.
I realize fully the seriousness of my contention.
I know that I have no right to differ from
the bulk of American historians unless I can
offer the most convincing reasons and the most
powerful and incontrovertible facts. T shall
yield the floor for the present to the Rev.
Thomas Ilughes, a Jesuit and the only one who
has examined the whole matter from the beginning
to the end. No one is so well qualified to
.--peak as he. He has investigated the archives of
the Vatican and Lord Baltimore's records and
private papers. He publishes more than two
hundred original documents and three-quarters
of them are entirely unknown to American historians.
His history has been published recently,
the last of its volumes one year ago, and all
under the careful supervision and thorough examination
of the Society of Jesus and the censorship
of the Pope himself. There is unquestionably
no book about this matter more trustworthy,
both for the Catholic and for the historian, than
this history.
Let my readers examine the ouotations whir?h
I shall make and see for themselves whether Lord
Baltimore or Rev. John Lewger or the majority
of the Assembly of Freemen can be called
Catholics.
On the contrary I think that every one will be
convinced that they ought to be called Protestants.
I begin with Lord Baltimore (Cecilius). About
him J. Thomas Scharf, the greatest American authority
on the history of Maryland has to say in
regard to the origin of religious freedom in
America, page 163: "To Calvert, 'Cecilius,'
then and to his Catholic followers and not to
the king, or to the Charter, belongs the glory of
Maryland toleration. The character of Cecilius,
the founder of the colony, has come down to us as
menliubu in ms acis ana in tne language of
historians, with religious liberty and respect for
the rights of the people.*'
My readers see how much Lord Baltimore has
to do with religious tolerance in Maryland, according
to the best historian of the Maryland
colony and now they will see directly what the
Jesuit historian has tovsay about the true religion
of that man. I quote from the first volume of
"The (History of the Society of Jesus in North
U T H ,?tt) t
America, etc.," by Rer. Thomas Hughes, S. J.,
page 350: "Within ten years, when Cecilius Calvert
had become a man, his father Sir George
Calvert, Secretary of State, entered the Catholic
Church. He took his family with him, and Cecilius
the oldest son seems to have entered also in
the current or in the wake of the family movement.
The color of his thought political, legal, and
historical as exhibited and his words and actions
during a long and chequered life would convey
the impression that not only his entrance into the
Catholic Church had been merely a domestic
matter, but that in after life his chief anchorage
in the same church was only a domestic matter,
one of family tradition and association. Indeed,
interest alone might suffice to keep him enrolled
there while his tastes and other associations'kept
him perfectly familiar with the Protestant world
which never deserted him to his prejudices and
which he took no pains to desert
Let my readers not forget that the above words
are neither mine nor those of a Protestant historian,
but that they are the words of an American
Jesuit, who wrote for Rome and with perfect
understanding of the life of Lord Baltimore.
This same writer, speaking of Lord Baltimore
and Rev. John Lewger, says, page 404, "The
magistrates nominally Catholic
Again, page 984, speaking of some opposition
of the Jesuits to the plans of Lord Baltimore he
says the Jesuts "protect themselves against a
so-called Catholic Lord," again the same author
says, page 286, "At the same time when Lord
Baltimore was endeavoring to eject the Jesuits
from Maryland, he invited the Puritans of Boston
to come and settle in his plantation;" again,
page 535, "If Copley (a Jesuit and the representative
of the Roman Catholic Church at that
time in Maryland), does not execute your orders,
you kidnap him and send him away instead,"
the order given by Lord Baltimore to his officers
in Maryland. I believe that my readers will
agree with the Jesuit historian that a Cathol?<*
wVlf* trioc t/\ ninof 4-V*^ J *A lV
...vo tu tuc ocauiis turn 111VIICS [DO
Puritans to kidnap the official representative of
the Catholic Church, who speaks disrespectfully
about the Pope and priesthood as the Jesuit relates
in several pages of his book may be a "socalled
Catholic, but he is not a Catholic at all.' *
Let my readers see for themselves whether the
Catholics fare better at the hands of the other
so-called Catholic, Rev. John Lewger.
Again I leave it to the learned Jesuit historian
to speak; first, to demonstrate Rev. John
Lewger's influence in Maryland and afterwards
his true standing on the Roman Catholic
Church, page 424, "He (Rev. John Lewger), had
barely arrived in the Province; yet evervthincr
was in his hands, his bills gone over to Baltimore
for final approval which would make them
statutes." My readers see at once how powerful
such a man was in the affairs of Maryland.
His standing with the Roman Catholic Church,
page 420, "He was ostensibly a Catholic; had
all the money, perquisites, and offices he wanted;
but being still a Protestant and retaining the
same principles which had befitted his former
pulpit, he was using all the power in his hands
to indoctrinate people with a strange creed."
Some Catholics may believe that the historian
AvorlAAl/n/l V?i? ? * ^ 11 1 *
? v.viiwwu mo uuiivcxuiuu to uainoncism
since he says "being still a Protestant." Let
them and my readers hear what this emminent
man has to say about the conversion of the Rev.
John Lewger, page 353: "Thus a convert to
Catholicism might have been a Protestant first,
then co-Protestant afterwards. Later on he
might even be a priest, as Lewger became; but
the one important stage totally wanting in the
process would still be that he should have become
a Catholic at some time or other."