Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

learned and liberal historian, (a) the Catholic planters of Maryland procured to their adopted country the distinguished praise of being the first of the American states in which toleration was established by law; and while the Puritans were persecuting their Protestant brethren in New England, and the Episcopalians retorting the same severity on the Puri- 36 tans in Virginia, the Catholics, against whom the others were combined, formed in Maryland a sanctuary, where all might worship and none might oppress, and where even Protestants sought refuge from Protestant intolerance. The proprietaries of Carolina, for the better encouragement of settlers, declared, concurrently in point of time with the Rhode Island charter, that all persons settling therein should enjoy the most perfect freedom in religion. (b) So, also, Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, the proprietaries of New Jersey, in their first concessions to the settlers, in 1664, of a charter of civil liberties, secured to them the full and perfect enjoyment of religious liberty, by adopting the same language as that used in the charter of Rhode Island. The fundamental constitutions of the twenty-four proprietaries in 1683, reiterated the right to the same unqualified freedom of religious profession and worship. In 1€98, the declaratory act of the general assembly of East New Jersey was a little more restrictive in its operations. Religious liberty was confined to the Protestant professors of the Christian faith, and so was the religious toleration allowed by the Massachusetts charter of 1691, and by the declaratory act of the general assembly of New York in 1691, and by the charter of Georgia in 1732. (c) On the other hand, the conces

from Langford, pp. 27-32. Mr. Kennedy, in his Discourse before the Maryland Historical Society, in December, 1845, says, that the glory of Maryland toleration is not the Act of 1649, but in the charter granted to George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, in 1632, and who, though a Catholic, was a distinguished friend to religious toleration.

(a) Grahame's History of the Rise and Progress of the United States.

(b) Chalmers's Annals, 517, 518. The charter of Charles II., of 30th June, 1667, to the proprietaries of Carolina, authorized them to grant religious liberty of conscience and practice to non-conformists, who did not thereby disturb the civil peace of the province. See the charter in R. S. of N. Carolina, vol. ii.

(c) Bradford's edition of the Laws of New York, 1719. Massachusetts Colony Laws, edit. 1814. 1 Holmes's Annals, 553. It appears, however, that by the charter of lib

sions of the one hundred and fifty proprietors and planters of the province of West New Jersey, in 1676, established under the auspices of William Penn, went to the most large and liberal extent. It was declared in them, that no man on earth had power or authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters, and that no person should be called in question, or punished, or hurt in person, estate, or privilege, for the sake of his opinion, judgment, or worship in the concernments of religion. (a) In the code of laws, or charter of privileges, prepared by William Penn for Pennsylvania, and adopted by the first provincial assembly, it was declared that no persons acknowledging a Deity, and living peaceably and justly in

society, should be molested or prejudiced for their re*37 ligious persuasion or practice in faith and worship, or be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious ministry or worship. (b) It appears from these illustrious examples

erties established by the general assembly of the province of New York, under the Duke of York, in 1683, complete enjoyment of religious profession and worship was granted to all persons who "professed faith in God by Jesus Christ." This, of course, included Roman Catholics. It is to be observed, however, that the Duke of York (afterwards James II.) was himself a papist. The body of laws known as the Duke's laws, and digested and promulgated by a convention of deputies on Long Island, Feb., 1665, called by Governor Nicoll, the first governor of New York under the Duke of York, declared that no person should be molested for differing in judgment in matters of religion who professed Christianity. See an abstract of the code in Thompson's History of Long Island, vol. i, p. 132, edit. 1843.

(a) Smith's History of New Jersey, pp. 126, 270-4, App. Nos. 1 and 2. Leaming & Spicer's Coll. edit. Philad. 1757, pp. 12-26, 155-166, 368, 382-411. In 1693, the legislature of West New Jersey prescribed a confession of faith as a condition of holding office, and that confession contained the declaration of a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, according to the English Toleration Act of 1689. Gordon's Hist. of New Jersey, 45.

(b) Proud's Hist. of Pennsylvania, vol. i. pp. 196, 206, 207, vol. ii. App. No. 2, p. 19, sec. 35. Charter of Privileges granted by William Penn, in 1701, and accepted by the general assembly, and inserted in the beginning of the volume of the Laws of Pennsylvania, edit. 1775. The Puritans of Massachusetts, under the charter of 1629, assumed the grant to them of the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; but the better opinion is, that this was a gratuitous assumption not warranted by any sound construction of their charter; and while they claimed this right for themselves, and exercised it without any foundation in the grant, they forthwith denied to Episcopalians the privilege of using their own creed and worship. The two recent historians, Grahame and Bancroft, take different sides on this question, (if any question there can really be,) under the charter of 1629. The former in his History of the United States, (vol. i. pp. 244–247,) follows Neal and other Puritans of

that various portions of this country became, even in its infant state, distinguished asylums for the enjoyment of the principles of civil and religious liberty, by the persecuted votaries of those principles from every part of Europe.

that age, in favor of the Puritans' claim; and the latter, in his History of the United States (vol. i. pp. 371, 372), follows Chalmers, Robertson, and Story, in opposition to it. The leading principle in the religious system of the colony of Massachusetts was the compulsory support of public worship, and the liability of every inhabitant to taxation for its support. Anabaptists and Quakers were first exempted, and next Episcopalians, who were allowed to pay their taxes to their own clergymen. The laws still in force contain the principle, that a religious establishment of the Christian Protestant religion and public worship, ought to be maintained by legal coercion. Oakes v. Hill, 10 Pick. Rep. 333.

Some of the colonial governments provided for the enjoyment of religious liberty in the largest sense, as allowing every man the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination; and this was the language of the constitution of New York, of 1777; and it is continued in the revised constitution of 1846; and the singularly argumentative preamble and statute of the assembly of Virginia, in 1786, carried the doctrine of religious freedom to the same extent. In other instances, religious toleration was granted, which meant the allowance of religious opinions and modes of worship differing from those established by law. The prevalent doctrine at the present day is in favor of religious liberty and equality, without the existence of any power of control, or distinction by law, or establishment. The Revised Constitution of New York, in 1846, seems to have set at liberty even the consciences of witnesses, for it declares that "No person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinion on matters of religious belief."

[blocks in formation]

1

APPENDIX.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

ARTICLE I.

SECTION I.

1. All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Con- Legislative gress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House powers. of Representatives.

SECTION II.

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members House of Represenchosen every second year by the people of the several states; and tatives; its the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for members; by whom electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. chosen. 2. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained Qualificato the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen oftion of repthe United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant tives. of that state in which he shall be chosen.

resenta

tatives and

apportion

numbers.

3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among Representhe several states which may be included within this Union, accord- taxes to be ing to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding ed accordto the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service ing to for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within Actual three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United tion every States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall

enumera

ten years.

« ForrigeFortsett »