From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Maryland Religious Freedom Act of 1649
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:31:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.213147.21186@oz.plymouth.edu> sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> >Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Maryland Religious
> >Freedom Act of 1649 (or some name extremely similar to that)?  
> 
> No, but please post if anyone has *any* info about such a document!  I
> find the year to be a bizarre one for a Catholic colony, only 15 years
> old in 1649, to be declaring religious freedom when the mother country
> just outlawed Catholicism!

Well, here it is, thanks to someone who referred me to Commanger's book
(which my library had).  I should note I wholeheartedly agree with
his adjective "so-called" since it starts by decreeing the death penalty
for believing in a non-Christian religion.

Maryland Toleration Act, April 21, 1649
(The Archives of Maryland, ed. by W. H. Browne, Vol I, p. 244ff)
[from DOCUMENTS OF AMERICAN HISTORY, ed. by Henry Steel Commanger, pp 31-32)]

[This so-called Toleration Act, passed in accordance with instructions
from Lord Baltimore, was designed to secure Maryland from the charge of
intolerance toward Protestantism.  In 1654 the Puritans gained control
of Maryland and the portection given to Catholics was withdrawn, but
upon the restoration Lord Baltimore to control, the act of 1649 was
revived.  The harsh provisions of the act against blasphemy were never
enforced.  See, G. Petrie, CHURCH AND STATE IN MARYLAND,
J. H. U. STUDIES, Volume X; M. P. Andrews, THE FOUNDING OF MARYLAND,
ch. x.  --Commanger's note]

Fforasmuch as in a well governed and Christian Common Wealth matters
concerning Religion and the Honor of God ought in the first place to be
taken, into serious consideration and endeavoured to bee settled.  Be
it therefore ... enacted ... That whatsoever person or persons withing
this Province ... shall from henceforth blaspheme God ... or shall deny
our Sabiour Jesus to bee the Sonne of God, or shall deny the Holy
trinity the ffather sonne and holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the
said Three persons of the Trinity orthe Unity of the Godhead ... shall
be punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her
lands...

 ... And whereas the inforceing of the conscience in matters of
religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence in
those commonwealthes where it hath been practised, And for the more
quiett and peaceable government of this Province, and the better to
preserve mutuall Love and amity amongst the inhabitants thereof.  Be it
Therefore ... enacted (except as in this present Act is before Declared
and sett forth) that noe person or persons whatsoever within this
Province, or the Islands, Ports, Harbors, Creekes, or havens thereunto
belonging professing to believe in jesus Christ, shall from henceforth
bee any waies troubled, Molested or discountenanced for or in respect
of his or her religion not in the free exercise thereof within this
Province or the Islands thereunto belonging nor any way compelled to
the beleife or exercise of any other religion against his or her
consent, soe as they be not unfaithful to the Lord Proprietary, or
molest or conspire against the civill Government established or to bee
established in this Province under him or his heires.  And that all &
every person and persons that shall presume Contrary to this Act and
the tru intent and meaning thereof directly or indirectly either in
person or estate willfully to wronge disturbe trouble or molest any
person whatsoever within this Province professing to believe in Jesus
Christ for or in respect of his or her religion or the free exercise
thereof within this Province other than is provided for in this Act
that such person or persons soe offending, shalbe compelled to pay
trebble damages to the party soe wronged or molested, and for every
such offence shall also forfeit 20s sterling in money or the value
thereof ..., Or if the parties soe offending as aforesaid shall refuse
or bee unable to recompense the party soe wronged, or to satisfy such
ffyne or forfeiture then such offender shalbe severely punished by
publick whipping & imprisonment during the pleasure of the Lord
proprietary, or his Lieutenant or cheife Governor of this Province for
the tyme being without baile or maineprise ...

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle