Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1855-07-04
HONOR 10 WHOM HONOR is DUE.n

"HONOR TO WHOM HONOR is DUE"
THE famous STEPHENS letter" as well as
other documents of similar character, have
been allowed the widest circulation which
this paper could give them, whilst nothing
in the way of reply has been published
that we are aware of. On the principle of
fair play then, we submit for the considera'
ton of: f:our readers, the following letter from
the Augusta Chronicle g. Sentinel. In doing
this our object is not to excite controversy, or
to detract from the just rights of others, but
simply tole the people see where the honor
lies" and thus enable them to bestow it
where tits due.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY LORD BALTIMORE.
To THE HoN. A. H. STEPHENs-Dear
Sir:-In a speech recently made by you in
the city of Augusta, perceive that you
refer to Lord Baltimore, the Catholic foun.
der Of Maryland, as having been the first to
establish a government on the principle OF
religious freedom, on this continent.
beg leave, respectfully, to join issue with
YOU on this statement, and that for two rea.
sons: First; because it gi"es credit to one
who does not deserve it.. Second, because
it takes away that credit from one who does
deserve it. Loei Baltimore was not only
not the first to found free government, but
he never founded such one at all, nor did
any of his successors who inheritedhis titles.
The pioneer in the cause of religious llber-
ty, was not Catholic, but a Baptist; not
Lord Baltimore, but Roger Williams, the
founder of Rhode Island.
"Whatever might have been the inten-
tons of Lord Baltimore or the favorable
disposition of the King, there was no guar
antee in the charter, nor indeed the least hsnt
of any toleration in religion not authorized
by the law of England" d."-Hildreth's U. S..
vol. l., p. 2Os. Nor was the earliest legis.
lation Of Maryland at all more creditable.
The "vaunted clause" for liberty, extended
only to professed christians, and was intro
duced BY the proviso, that whatsoever per.
son shall blaspheme God, or shall deny or
reproach the Holy Trinity, or any Of the
three persons thereof, shall be punished with
death."-Bancroft's U. S., vol. l., p. 256
From this -ws percetve 1hat-Jews, now
numerous aud respectable portion OF our
population, and Unitarians, who constitute
perhaps the controlling element in New
England Society, to say nothing OF our
Chinese citizens, of whom there are now
some Thousands, were all liable, under this
boasted free government, to the penalty OF
the axe, or Of the halter. Says the histori.
an first quoted, !"The first four sections Of
this celebrated act 1.-THE so.called federation
-Act exhibit but little Of tolerant spirit.
Death. with forfeiture Of land and goods, is
denounced against all who shall
deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be
the Son of God, or shall deny the Trinity.
Fine, whipping and Punishment, for the third
offence are denounced against all who shall
utter any reproachful words or speeches
concerning. the blessed Virgin Mary, or the
Holy Apostles or Erangetists"-Hildreth
vol. l., p. s47. This is contained in an act
"derived in substance if not in uery rords
from Lord Baltimore's drafts" ditto supra.
This act " did; indeed, but carry out policy
co.eval with the settlement of the colony"
Hildreth vol. l., p. 347, and was confirmed
bv the oath administered to the first governor,
which provided for the religious protection
of none but those who believed in Jesus
Christ. Bancroft vol. l., p. 24s. ibis was
in l649. A few years later, their legisla.
ton was even more intolerant; in 1868
those who refused to have their children
baptized, were subjected to fine of 1000
pounds of Tobacco. Hildreth vol. l., P.
SIG. And even as late as TIA persons
expressing certain religious opinions, were
liable TO have. their tongues bored through
and be fined f2o.-Hildreth vol. H., p. s24.
True, the examples last quoted are matters
with which the first Lord Baltimore had
nothing to do, for be died very early in the
history of the country; but they serve to
illustrate the spirit Of Maryland institutions
and are not incompatible with the original
charter.
1t is worthy of remark furthermore, that
whatever of right or wrong there may be in
the charter or legislation of Maryland, Cath.
olcs as such, are to be neither applauded
nor censured for the same; for vast MAORI.
ty of the population were Protestants, Ban.
croft II. Asa, and Hid. I. $685. and their
charter was granted from Protestant crown.
The Catholics had the best of all possible
reasons for being in favor Of toleration, for
whether in Maryland or in England, they
were alike liable to persecution from the
dominant party. Indeed, they were once
or twice disfranchised on the very soil whith.
er they had fed to escape disfranchisement.
There is no reason to suppose that the
full conception of soul-liberty" had ever
occurred to the mind of either the frs: Lord
Baltimore or of any of his five successors.
q" 1t was not liberation, but supremacy, for
which Catholics and PuritaDs alike sought,
while the Church of England for the main,
tenance of her own supremacy. struggled
equally against both' HID |. 204. "Poli.
cy, it is evident, had much greater share
in the enactment Of this act, (the federation
Act than enlightened view of the rights Of
opinion, of which indeed it evinces but q
very limited and confused idea. Now, that
the Puritans were triumphant in New Eng.
land, an exclusive Catholic colony would
not have been tolerated for a moment. The
sole chance of securing to the Catholics the
quiet enjoyment of their faith, consisted in
bestowing IKE liberty on the .Protestants
"a policy indeed upon which Lord Balti.
more had found it necessary to act from