Click here to return to CWP homepage


Toby Terrar, “Was There a Separation between Church and State in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England and Colonial Maryland? The Nature of Religious Freedom within the Post-Reformation Laboring Catholic Community.” This article originally appeared in Journal of Church and State (Waco, Texas), vol. 35, no. 1 (Winter 1993), pp. 61-82.

            This article is about the laboring Catholics in the mid-seventeenth-century English settlement at St. Mary's in Maryland and their ideas about and efforts at establishing religious freedom. To a certain degree it is also about the Catholics in England. The article raises the possibility that the Catholics in Maryland narrowed the separation between church and state to advance what they believed was their religious freedom. At the same time, in England the laboring people may have widened the separation between church and state to achieve the same goal. Part of the discussion will be about why the people took one path to religious freedom in Maryland and another in England.

            The traditional historical interpretation of the Maryland community during the period emphasizes the role of the 1649 Act of Religious Toleration, which in a sense widened the separation between church and state to protect the Catholics' freedom.[1] However, the focus in this article is on a series of laws enacted soon after settlement which narrowed the separation between church and state. These laws preceded the 1649 act by a decade. The earlier laws addressed a threat to the Catholics' religious freedom that was different from but in their view no less serious than that dealt with in the 1649 act.

            St. Mary's was the only seventeenth-century settlement in British North America with a relatively strong Catholic presence. During the period under study the Catholics numbered about 400, which was a quarter of the total population.[2] They were influential in the Maryland legislative assembly and in the economic and religious life of the community. In their correspondence, pamphlets, legislation, and court records they left a record of their ideas about religious freedom. There are two parts to this article. The first part describes the challenge to the Catholics' religious freedom. The second part is about the Catholics' solution as embodied in their legislation on the subject.

            THE PROBLEM. The difficulty which the Maryland Catholics faced concerning religious freedom, like the St. Mary's community itself, had its origins in England. St. Mary's was in some measure an English village transplanted 3,000 miles west. Most of the Maryland Catholics were born and raised in England. They had been living with limitations on their religious freedom there before coming to America. The limitations on their religious freedom in England and Maryland derived from at least two factors. One of the limiting factors, the one which historians traditionally cite, centers on the Reformation and the penal laws.[3] The monasteries and Catholic hierarchy lost their real estate and legality. It was unlawful for Catholic priests to be trained in England or for foreign-trained priests to minister in England.[4] While the Catholic clergy functioned in England despite the penal laws, their ministry was limited.

            Part of the traditional interpretation for the limitation on the Catholics' religious freedom is the idea that Maryland and English Catholics were mainly from the gentry class. As one writer put it, "For all intents and purposes seventeenth-century Catholicism was a quietest sect of aristocratic and upper-gentry families."[5] The gentry's wealth and ability to pay fines or bribes made them attractive targets for prosecution under the penal laws. Their vulnerability limited their ability to work for religious freedom in England and Maryland. Those historians who follow the interpretation for the limitation on the Catholics' religious freedom rely mainly on the contemporary pamphlets published by the gentry and their clergy on the continent. These pamphlets, especially those subsidized by Rome and Spain, stressed the hardships brought by the penal laws, which included martyrdom, imprisonment, and fines.

            Until the advent of the local English county studies and similar research in Maryland starting in the 1960s, historians almost exclusively attributed the limitation on the Catholics' religious freedom to the Reformation and penal laws. However, the picture that has emerged from the local studies has brought a general revision in how the post-Reformation Catholic community is viewed. The revision extends to the limitation on religious freedom and the causes for it. The local studies picture the bulk of the Catholic community as laboring people, not gentry.[6] Catholics were less than 10 percent of the total English population and, as noted earlier, less than 25 percent of the Maryland population.[7] But of this number, more than 80 percent of the Catholics in England and 90 percent in Maryland made their living from their own manual labor.[8] They were not gentry. The evidence on which the laboring attribution is based includes court, probate, and tax records and the Catholics' unpublished diaries, commonplace books, and letters.

            The local county studies picture the bulk of the Catholic population as laboring people and the penal laws as generally having no significant influence in their lives.[9] It might be thought that the general non-enforcement of the penal laws was a case of administrative inefficiency. But the local studies indicate it was rather a policy of efficiency. Exaction of the statutory 12d weekly fine on non-attendance at Anglican services was disregarded by parochial officers because it would have meant pauperdom for the Catholics, Puritans, and others who did not conform. Paupers became a charge on the parish. The interest of the church warden was to collect parish revenue, not needlessly to expand obligations.

            It is true that convicted, recusant Catholics were denied many civil rights, most significantly the franchise. But Protestants were also denied such rights in a society where the gentry and nobility were constituted a separate class by law. The franchise was limited to "40-shillings freeholders," which was less than one-third the adult male population.[10] The nobility had their own house in the legislature. Catholic laboring people were denied rights because of their class. But about 20 of the 120 English peers were Catholic. Those who were church Catholics held office and possessed full civil rights.[11]

            Those who have been accustomed to the traditional interpretation of post-Reformation Catholicism have complained about the work of historians such as Peter Newman, John T. Cliffe, and Hugh Aveling: they "have quite failed to provide a grass-roots background for the national policies of no-popery."[12] The most important work about the period, John Bossy's English Catholic Community is said to be "decidedly odd" for "scarcely mentioning anti-Catholicism, a persistent feature of English politics for nearly 300 years."[13] The local studies are also found wanting because they do not have much about the other traditional themes: martyrology, apology, or debates on the hierarchy.

            What one sees in the local studies is that it was not so much the penal laws that limited religious freedom in mid-seventeenth-century Maryland and England, as it was the class system. By the class system being an obstacle to religious freedom is meant that the gentry monopolized the clergy, just as they did real estate, educational services, political power, and the courts. The Catholic community, like the Protestant community, was a class divided society. Christopher Hill and Peter Burke maintain that both before and after the Reformation up to half the English population rarely received pastoral services or attended church.[14] This was because of the people's poverty and the negative views of the gentry and clergy about serving the laboring people. Laborers, servants, the young and the old, whether Protestant or Catholic, were not prosecuted for non-attendance at Anglican services. They did not have the money to make them worth prosecuting for non-attendance, and as noted, the church wardens did not wish to create paupers who would be a charge on the parish.[15] In some cases, the authorities prevented or attempted to prevent laboring people from attending services because they did not have proper clothes for church.[16]

            The neglect of pastoral service by the established church was one of the issues during the English Civil War of the 1640s. Gerrard Winstanley was among those who articulated the views of the laboring people. His point was that God did not give a monopoly on religious freedom to the gentry; the right to pastoral services was the "birthright freedom" of everyone. The people should not have to pay a tithe to those who did not serve them:

Therefore no marvel, that the national clergy of England and Scotland who are the tithing priests and lords of blinded men's spirits, held so close to their master the king, for, say they, "if the people must not work for us and give us tithes, but we must work for ourselves as they do, our freedom is lost." Yes, but this is but the cry of an Egyptian task-master, who counts other men's freedom his bondage.[17]

            It was a "bondage" for the people to be denied the freedom of pastoral service. Their bondage was the basis for the established clergy's freedom to allow the gentry to monopolize the ministry. During the Civil War, laboring people among the Independents and Presbyterians in England expanded their religious freedom by helping to establish a relative separation between church and state. The system of Anglican bishops and their church courts, which had served as an appendage to the crown, were abolished by parliamentary legislation in 1643 and 1646.[18] In the process the hierarchy's estates were confiscated. At the local level the congregations in some 2,000 of England's 10,000 parishes ejected their non-resident or pluralist pastors.[19] Pluralists were those who held income and responsibility for two or more parishes. In place of the dismissed clergy, the congregations hired clergy willing to serve as residents.

            The abolition of the hierarchy, the dismissal of the parish clergy, and the general widening of the separation between church and state in England was not generally anti-clerical. It was just the reverse: it was testimony to the desire for a more responsive ministry.[20] Religious freedom, so many people believed, could be increased by widening the separation between church and state, that is, by limiting the state's ability to guarantee clerical tenure. An even greater widening of the church-state tie occurred for a short period in 1653 when Parliament abolished the tithe.[21] The tithe was a foundation of the established church. Cromwell overturned Parliament's decision on the issue, but he was unable to prevent the people on their own from eliminating or substantially reducing the tithe during the period.

            The class system was as much an obstacle for the laboring Catholics' pastoral service as it was for the Protestants'. To get a picture of how the class system contributed to the limitation on the Catholics' religious freedom in England and Maryland, the number, geographical, and class distribution of the Catholic clergy can be considered. There were between 750 and 1,000 Catholic priests serving in England in the 1640s.[22] John Bossy, assuming the lower figure, estimates that about 450 were secular priests and 300 were regular priests, that is Jesuits, Benedictines, and those of several other orders. Of the seculars, 70 served in the north, 60 in Wales, 40 in London, and 270 in the south and midlands. The regular clergy were similarly distributed. More than half, especially among those serving in the south and midlands, were domestic chaplains and tutors for the gentry, with little service to the laboring Catholics.[23]

            That more than half the English Catholic clergy should have ended up serving at best 20 percent of the Catholic population was in the nature of the class system. Also in its nature was that two-thirds of both the secular and regular clergy were from gentry families. It was generally the gentry who could afford to send their children to the continent for the education received by the clergy.[24] Service to the gentry as domestic chaplains meant earning £20 to £25 per year, twice what laboring Catholics who supported families were able to make.[25] Leander Jones noted in 1634 that being a priest was a way for the gentry to gain a comfortable living.[26] Most of the clergy, on their return to England after being educated abroad, served in the same district and for the same families among which they had been raised.

            It might appear that the ordered clergy, such as the Jesuits and Benedictines, would be less constrained by the class system because of the corporate ties of their orders abroad. But, if anything, the beliefs, constitutions, and customs of the ordered clergy restricted them even more than the secular clergy from the pastoral-congregational-parish ministry to laboring people.[27] The Jesuits' constitution stated in part, "The more universal the good is, the more is it divine. . . For that reason, the spiritual aid given to important and public persons ought to be regarded as more important, since it is a more universal good."[28] By "important" the Jesuits meant gentry.[29] Thomas Aquinas, himself a member of the ordered clergy, had likewise interpreted the gospel to accommodate the class system. He called the congregational ministry "a lower grade of perfection."[30] For the congregational ministry to the laboring people, the practical result of the class system embodied in the ordered clergy's customs and constitutions can be seen in the ministry and thought of Robert Southwell, S.J. Southwell was one of the early ordered priests in England after the Reformation. He was a domestic chaplain to the countess of Arundel. He was critical of another priest who served laboring people through an itinerant ministry, "I am much grieved to hear of your unsettled way of life, visiting many people, at home with none. We are all, I acknowledge, pilgrims, but not vagrants; our life is uncertain, but not our road."[31] It was the exception rather than the rule when laboring Catholics were able to obtain the services of the ordered clergy for their congregations.

            John Bossy has found that among the Catholic gentry, the penal laws led to no limitations on clerical services. Rather there was an oversupply of domestic chaplains.[32] For this reason the local county histories have been critical of the earlier version of Catholic history which attributed the limitation on the Catholics' religious freedom exclusively to the penal laws:

The Catholic gentry, the second group of heroes of the Persons' version of English Catholic history, arrogated to themselves an inappropriate share of the clerical resources of the post-Reformation mission. The gentlemen have been credited with ensuring "the survival of the faith" and so they did, but their faith, at the expense of everyone else's![33]

            Similarly in Maryland, the class system, not so much the penal laws, was at the root of the limitation on the Catholics' freedom of pastoral service. For the clergy who migrated to Maryland, the congregational ministry to laboring people was not a priority. The Maryland clergy were members of the Jesuit order. As in other mission territories, their interest was in converting the Indians, in serving as domestic chaplains to the gentry, and in the administration of their own farms.[34] They assumed secular clergy would come out to minister to the laboring people.[35] This did happen in Maryland for a short period in the early 1640s when two secular priests came out.[36] Another secular, John Lewger, served in the latter half of the 1640s.

            In the traditional interpretation the Maryland clergy were depicted as heroic.[37] But this mainly involved service to the Indians rather than to the laboring migrants.[38] The attraction to the clergy in Maryland, besides service to the gentry, was the opportunity of service among the Indians. In England, this "heroic" psychology was manifested by those who endured a "glorious" martyrdom at the hands of the Protestants. For Jesuit saints like Aloysius Gonzaga, the missionary ideal was an expression of their "contempt" for the world. Gonzaga joined the order so that he could "sacrifice" his life in converting the Indians to Christ in the American missions.[39] Nathaniel Southwell, S.J. asked his superior in 1634 to be sent to North America because it was "the most perfect oblation of all and the greatest sacrifice of myself which I can offer in this life to the lord. . . It is likewise a most complete act of self-abnegation, since it is a separation in fact from all things that are dear to me in this life, without any hope of ever seeing them again; and so it is morally a kind of death suffered for Christ."[40] For such clergy in Maryland and their counterparts in England, the real martyrdom may have been in serving laboring people.

            The Solution to the Limitation on Religious Freedom. The local studies of Maryland and England point to the class system, that is, the unequal distribution of the clergy as being as much an obstacle to the religious freedom of laboring people as the penal laws. The focus of this article is on the solution which the Maryland Catholics devised for removing the limitations on their religious freedom. Their solution was largely legislative in nature. It involved narrowing the separation between church and state, which in a sense was the opposite to the solution followed by the laboring people in England. However, the results obtained were the same. During most of the mid-century period, the Catholics had a dominant influence in the Maryland assembly. They constituted a majority of those whose religion is known.[41] John Krugler finds the Protestants did not exert "any profound influence on the colony as Protestants."[42]

            Four of the Catholics' legislative enactments addressed the religious freedom limitation. One of the first measures which they enacted upon settlement in Maryland was aimed at protecting their "birthright freedom" of clerical service. This measure required that the clergy undertake the office of "pastors."[43] Being a pastor meant ministering to the congregations of laboring people, performing baptisms, marriages, and burials, conducting regular services, and giving catechetical lectures.[44] That the assembly found it necessary to enact such a law suggests the difficulties on the subject which they had lately experienced in England and were then experiencing in Maryland. The reaction of the clergy to the enactment seems to confirm this suggestion. The Maryland clergy protested against the pastoral law, calling it "inconvenient."[45]

            In England the Parliament widened the separation between church and state by abolishing the system of bishops and church courts which were part of the national government. This permitted the local parishes to gain greater control concerning the appointment and tenure of the clergy. Congregations were able to eject the pluralist and non-resident clergy who had been protected by the hierarchy. In Maryland the same object, the right to pastoral service, was obtained by narrowing the separation between church and state with the pastoral law. Unlike in the established parishes in England, the Maryland congregations had no alternative supply of clergy to replace those who were unwilling to provide pastoral services. The logical way for them to obtain their birthright involved narrowing the separation of church and state in order to encourage the clergy who were in Maryland to as pastors.

            The pattern of narrowing the separation between church and state in defense of the Catholics' religious freedom was also followed in a second assembly enactment. This was a praemunire law which made it a capital offense for the clergy to appeal to the authority of canon law, church courts, the Jesuits' constitutions, or Rome's authority.[46] As one priest put it, the praemunire law gave the Catholics the right to "hang" any clergyman who invoked excommunication against them for, among other things, the pastoral law. The praemunire enactment was a penal law, but in England it had predated the Reformation by several hundred years and reflected what was probably the traditional fraternal rather than paternal or inferior relation between the English and Roman church.[47] The praemunire law in Maryland was useful to the community because the Jesuits' constitution, as noted earlier, directed them to give a priority to the conversion of the Indians and to the service of the magnates.[48] One scholar puts it, the Jesuits forswore for themselves the office of pastorate.[49] The praemunire law made it a criminal offense for the clergy to avoid the congregational ministry to the laboring people by citing their constitutions or orders from Rome or by threatening to excommunicate the Catholics for interfering with the clergy's priorities.[50]

            There was an additional positive aspect of the praemunire law besides putting a limitation on the ability of the hierarchy and Roman establishment to interfere with the Catholics' religious freedom. This was that the praemunire law prevented the establishment of local church courts.[51] Despite the clergy's protests, the Maryland assembly assigned to the provincial (common law) court matters that traditionally came under the jurisdiction of church courts in England and on the continent. Where church courts existed in both Catholic and Protestant countries, they seem to have been used by the gentry against the pastoral interests of the working people. For example, in Mexico during the mid--century period, church courts were an appendage to the Spanish colonial order. The Mexican gentry employed corporal punishment to coerce obedience from the laboring people. When slaves and servants rebelled during such punishment by blaspheming, they were turned over to church courts. The church courts then applied torture, which was legal, to gain an admission of guilt concerning the blasphemy. Then they were further punished by the church courts to gain obedience.[52] Torture and punishment of laboring people for the profit of the gentry was detrimental the religious freedom of the laboring people.[53] Even without the courts, the Maryland clergy waged at least one anti-blasphemy campaign among their own servants.[54]

            In the 1630s the Catholics in England had pressured the government there to invoke the praemunire law against their own bishop, Richard Smith, and force him into permanent exile in France. The reason for the Catholics' antipathy against Smith had been his attempt to establish church courts with jurisdiction over testaments, legacies, and marriages.[55] These courts would turn the ministry into a "leach" on the people, as one contemporary put it. The English Catholics claimed that the "fear-mongering" doctrine of purgatory, the refusal to administer the sacraments, and the church courts were all part of a system to gain undeserved legacies for the hierarchy.[56] In Maryland, even without church courts, the clergy attempted to interfere in civil marriages between Catholics and Protestants. Had canon law been permitted, Catholics would have even been denied the right to marry Protestants.[57]

            Besides the pastoral and praemunire laws, the Maryland Catholics took several other steps which narrowed the separation between church and state in order to promote their religious freedom. As in Wales and in other mission countries, the clergy took up the ownership of farms in Maryland.[58] This required one of the clergy to be occupied full-time in estate management.[59] The tendency of the clergy to slip into the role of gentleman farmers became an obstacle to the pastoral ministry in eighteenth-century Maryland.[60] The farming enterprises and profit-making of missionaries was a big enough problem generally that Pope Urban VIII in 1633 issued legislation outlawing these activities. However, this legislation was directed mainly at Latin America and Africa, where most of the missions were located. The prohibitions, like all canon law, only had effect when the local government was willing to enforce it.[61] The Maryland Catholics devised their own legislative solution which limited the farm management activity of their clergy. This legislative solution consisted in the enactment of an anti-mortmain law, which in effect outlawed the ownership of property by the clergy.[62] The clergy's protests, which were echoed by their superiors in London and Rome, were strong and seem to indicate the Catholics were touching on a fundamental issue.[63]

            The anti-mortmain law inhibited the tendency toward the clergy's involvement in estate management and it made possible the establishment of St. Mary's chapel. The chapel was built by a joint subscription of the Protestants and Catholics in 1638. It was 18 x 30 feet in size, of brick construction, and used by both Catholics and Protestants.[64] Building it jointly with Protestants cut down on the costs to the Catholics. Such collaboration where the clergy owned the church would have been impossible. The clergy could have been excommunicated by Rome for permitting Protestant services.

            Also in the category of promoting the Catholics' religious freedom despite the preferences of the clergy for a wider separation between church and state was a fourth assembly measure. It put limitations upon the clergy's freedom to proselytize among the Indians. This in effect increased their availability for service to the laboring Catholics.[65] An indication that the mission had not lived up to the preferences of the Jesuit hierarchy is that in the 1650s the superior in England, Edward Knott, S.J., sought to abolish the Jesuit presence in Maryland. But by the 1650s the clergy had been serving in a pastoral role for 20 years and apparently had been won over to it. It was the clergy who successfully petitioned to the superior for the continuation of their presence.[66]

            This article emphasizes the role of the Maryland Catholics in solving the limitation on their religious freedom. But the Maryland Protestants also contributed to the solution. It was not only the Catholics but also the Protestants who experienced limitations on their right to the pastoral ministry. For much of the period, the Maryland Protestants had no clergy. Their solution was often to join the Catholic congregations. For example, in 1638 nearly all the Protestants who migrated to Maryland became Catholics.[67] This may have been as many as 100 people. They joined because Catholic clergy were present to minister. There were generally one to three priests serving in Maryland at any particular time. Twelve priests in all served the community during the mid-seventeenth century for periods of from 6 months to 15 years.[68] The Catholic growth was great enough that within the first decade of settlement three Catholic congregations were established.[69] The legislative solution to the limitations on the Catholics' freedom could not have been achieved without the help of the Protestants, many of whom directly benefited from the legislation.

            The Maryland Catholic growth was similar to the pattern of growth in northern and western England and in Ireland.[70] The English Catholic convicted recusant population increased by one-half, from 40,000 to 60,000, between 1603 and 1641.[71] As noted, a majority of the clergy lived in the south of England, served the gentry, and had no relation to the bulk of the Catholic community. The Catholic population even declined in this area in the seventeenth century. This was in part because there was sufficient Anglican clergy but also because the Catholic gentry did not wish to share the services of the Catholic clergy with the laboring people.[72] But the minority of the Catholic clergy who chose (or were forced because of an over supply of domestic chaplains) to exercise an itinerant and congregational ministry in the north and west gained substantial results.[73] Illustrative of the congregational priests was Nicholas Postgate. He reported on the fruitful nature of his ministry, "at this moment I have quite 600 penitents, and could have more if I wished; or rather, what I lack is not will, but help; I am working to the limits of my strength."[74]

            As in Maryland, the growth of Catholicism in England was linked to the absence of Anglican clergy and the presence of Catholic clergy. Areas such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Northern High Peake district, and Monmouthshire on the South Wales border had Anglican parishes which were large and poor.[75] They offered little income for the established clergy, and consequently the needs of laboring people tended to be ignored.[76] Those Anglican clergy who did serve were sometimes non-residents or pluralists.[77] In Yorkshire, for example, there were 314 parishes, but there were 470 settled places of worship. In effect this meant there were more than 100 potential Yorkshire parishes without regular clergy.[78] In these areas, as one writer puts it, Catholicism had "an ability to attract and hold people as diverse as Cleveland jetters, fisherman, tailors, small gentry, farmers, ambitious new peers, and declining old ones. It had an extraordinary tenacity of attraction for the most marginal."[79]

            The conditions were similar in Lancashire. While in some counties there was one Anglican priest per 400 people, in Lancashire's 56 Anglican parishes, it was sometimes closer to 1,700 people per priest.[80] Catholic priests willing to serve without pay or rather to serve a circuit in exchange for a meal with a family and a night's rest under their roof had unlimited congregations.[81] Just as in Maryland, so in England, the Protestants sometimes solved their priest shortage by joining Catholic congregations.

            For some Catholic recusants in England the penal laws created difficulties. But for others, such laws may have helped expand religious freedom. That is, from the perspective of those Maryland and English Protestant laboring people whose pastoral needs were neglected by the established clergy, the penal laws created a dual clergy system, which encouraged or forced at least some of the Catholic clergy to look for employment among the neglected. It seems these laws at times had pastoral results for religious freedom not anticipated by their authors in the Anglican hierarchy.

            CONCLUSION. To sum up, the local county studies in England and similar studies of Maryland since the 1960s have revised the way historians view post-Reformation Catholicism. Catholicism is now seen to have been mainly a religion of laboring people, not gentry. The Catholic community had limitations on its freedom, but at least concerning pastoral service, the limitation was on the laboring people not the gentry. The limitation was related to the class system, not only to penal laws.

            The article has suggested that the revision in the picture of post-reformation Catholicism may extend not only to the reasons for the limitation on Catholic religious freedom, but to the way the Maryland Catholics solved it. The early Maryland Catholics have traditionally been celebrated for their 1649 law on religious toleration, which broadened the separation between church and state. In the context of the seventeenth century, however, the legislation narrowing the separation between church and state may have also been significant.[82] For laboring Catholics, the obstacle to their freedom was as much from the gentry Catholics and clergy as it was from the intolerance of Protestants. This may be the reason the pastoral legislation preceded the toleration law by a decade. Perhaps pastoral service, not Protestantism, was the main thing on their mind.

            The Maryland Catholics' achievements and the religious-biblical tradition which it represents seemingly has relevance to the continuing debate about the nature of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Contemporary American structural-functional sociology emphasizes the freedom, as one French writer put it, of both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges rather than the freedom of all to housing. The structural-functionalists, none of whom sleep under bridges, minimize class in discussing freedom. The experience of the post-Reformation Catholics seems to have been that religious freedom involved not only the church-state issue, but the class issue. For them, the contradiction was not only between church and state, but between gentry and laboring people. Their experience in looking at religious freedom was that one had to ask, "freedom for whom and for what."

            During the mid-seventeenth century the leveler movement in England embodied many of the laboring people's desires for "class" freedom. The Maryland community actually achieved some of these aspirations: taxes were small and non-existent on food and other necessities, they had an annual parliament, a wide franchise, equal constituencies, no tithes or bishops, a simplified legal system, no imprisonment for debt, and no enclosures. The "birthright freedom" of pastoral service was not least among the levelers' aspirations which were realized in Maryland. What A. L. Morton says about the levelers might also in part be said of the Maryland Catholics' church-state relations:

A party that held the center of the stage for three of the most crucial years in our nation's history, voiced the aspiration of the unprivileged masses, and was able to express with such force ideas that have been behind every great social advance since their time, cannot be regarded as wholly a failure or deserve to be wholly forgotten.[83]



 Click here to return to CWP homepage



[1]"Act Concerning Religion" (Apr. 1649), Archives of Maryland, ed. William H. Browne (72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, pp. 244-247; Carl Everstine, "Maryland's Toleration Act: An Appraisal," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (1984), 99, 104; David Jordan, "`The Miracle of this Age,' Maryland's Experiment in Religious Toleration, 1649-1689," Historian, 47 (1985), 338-359.

[2]Michael Graham, "Meetinghouse and Chapel: Religion and Community in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," in Lois Green Carr, Philip Morgan, and Jean Russo, Colonial Chesapeake Society (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), p. 247; Russell Menard, "Population, Economy and Society in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), 72; Russell Menard, Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland (New York: Garland Pub., [1975], 1985), p. 136; John Lewger, "The Cases" (1638), in Thomas Hughes S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North America: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), documents, vol. 1, p. 158.

[3]John Morris, S.J. (ed.), Troubles of our Forefathers (3 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1877); Hugh Tootell, Dodd's Church History of England from the Commencement of the Sixteenth Century to the Revolution in 1688 (5 vols., New York: AMS Press, [1839-1843] 1971), vol. 3, pp. 75-170; vol. 4, pp. 160-180; Philip Caraman (ed.), The Years of Siege: Catholic Life from James I to Cromwell (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1966).

[4]Francis X. Walker, "Implementation of the Elizabethan Statutes against Recusants," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1961, p. 29; Martin Havran, The Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1962), pp. 8-10.

[5]Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 730-731; John Krugler "`With Promise of Liberty in Religion,' The Catholics Lord Baltimore and Toleration in Seventeenth-Century Maryland, 1634-1692," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), p. 37; Michael Graham, S.J., "Lord Baltimore's Pious Enterprise: Toleration and Community in Colonial Maryland," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1983, p. 99; Charles Mclean Andrews, The Colonial Period of American History (4 vols., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936), vol. 2, p. 298.

[6]Hugh Aveling, O.S.B., Catholic Recusancy in the City of York, 1558-1791 (St. Albans, Hertfordshire, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1970), pp. 86-87; J. A. Hilton, "The Recusant Commons in the Northeast, 1570-1642," Northern Catholic History, no. 12 (Autumn 1980), 4; Keith Lindley, "The Lay Catholics of England in the Reign of Charles I," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 22 (1971), 203.

[7]Anne Whiteman, "Introduction," The Compton Census of 1676: A Critical Edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. lxxvii; Gregory King, Two Tracts, (a) Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions upon the State and Conditions of England, (b) of the Naval Trade of England, ed. George Barnett (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1936), p. 18; Edward A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England, 1541-1871: A Reconstruction (London: Edward Arnold, 1981), p. 208, Table 7.8.

[8]St. Mary's City Commission, "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," (Annapolis: Hall of Records, 1989). The "Career Files" are an alphabetically arranged data base for each of the 5,000 seventeenth-century (1,955 up until 1660) Maryland residents known by name. In constructing the "Career Files," the public records in Maryland were "stripped." Each individual's "Career File" contains a copy of every document in which the individual's name is mentioned. Many files are 100 pages or longer. Forty items from each of the "Career Files" have been entered into a personal computer (D-Base IV) program, A Biographical Dictionary of St. Mary's County Residents, 1634-1705 (1991). It is available from Historic St. Mary's City, C/O Lois Green Carr, 350 Rowe Boulevard, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md. 21401. I am indebted Dr. Carr for making the "Career Files" and D-Base IV disks available for this article. For the laboring nature of the English Catholic population see David Mosler, "Warwickshire Catholics in the Civil War," Recusant History, 15 (1980), 261; Hilton, "The Recusant Commons in the Northeast," p. 7; Leslie A. Clarkson, The Pre-Industrial Economy in England, 1500-1750 (New York: Schocken, 1972), p. 66.

[9]D. C. Coleman, "Labor in Seventeenth-Century England," Economic History Review, (1956), 283-284; Barry Reay, "Popular Religion," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985), p. 95; Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), pp. 472-475; Hugh Aveling, O.S.B., "Some Aspects of Yorkshire Catholic Recusant History, 1558-1791," Studies in Church History, 4 (1967), 108; Aveling, Catholic Recusancy in the City of York, p. 87; Peter Newman, "Roman Catholics in Pre-Civil War England: The Problem of Definition," Recusant History, 15 (1979), 148-149; John T. Cliffe, The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (London: Athlone Press, 1969), p. 202; Hugh Aveling, O.S.B., Northern Catholics: The Catholic Recusants of the North Riding, Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), pp. 216, 217.

[10]Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters and Voting in England Under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge: University Press, 1975), pp. 5, 22, 32, 157, 233.

[11]Peter Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A Bibliographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Pub., 1981), pp. 7, 21-22, 92, 211, 313, 361-362, 377, 419, 441.

[12]Caroline Hibbard, "Early Stuart Catholicism: Revision and Re-Revisions," Journal of Modern History, 52 (1980), 4.

[13]Hibbard, "Early Stuart Catholicism," p. 9.

[14]Reay, "Popular Religion," p. 95; Hill, Society and Puritanism, pp. 472-475. D. C. Coleman, "Labor in Seventeenth-Century England," pp. 283-284, estimates that between one-fourth and one-half of England's population in 1660 was "chronically below what contemporaries regarded as the official poverty line."

[15]Aveling, Catholic Recusancy in the City of York, p. 87.

[16]Aveling, "Some Aspects of Yorkshire Catholic Recusant History," p. 108; John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd), 1975), p. 187.

[17]Gerrard Winstanley, The Law of Freedom on a Platform, or True Magistracy Restored (London: Giles Calvert, 1651), pp. 17-18; reprinted in Christopher Hill (ed.), The Law of Freedom and other Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 299-300.

[18]Carson I. A. Richie, The Ecclesiastical Courts of York (Arbroath: Herald, 1956); Aveling, Northern Catholics, pp. 205, 247, 322; William Shaw, A History of the English Church, 1640-1660 (New York: B. Franklin, [1900] 1974), vol. 1, pp. 91, 120-121, 225-227, vol. 2, p. 210; "Act for the Abolition of the Court of High Commission," (1641), 17 Car. 1, cap. 11, in Henry Gee (ed.), Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1921), pp. 547-550; Roland G. Usher, The Rise and Fall of the High Commission (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913); Hill, Society and Puritanism, p. 343.

[19]Joan Wake, The Brudenells of Deene (London: Casell, 1954), p. 143; Robert Brenner, "The Civil War Politics of London's Merchant Community," Past and Present, 58 (1973), 98.

[20]Hill (ed.), Law of Freedom, p. 282.

[21]Christopher Hill, God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1970), pp. 133-135; Eric Evans, "Tithes" The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1640-1750, ed. Joan Thirsk (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1985), vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 394; Margaret James, "The Political Importance of the Tithes Controversy in the English Revolution, 1640-1660," History, 26 (1941), 11.

[22]Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 211, 217, 227.

[23]Ibid., pp. 227-228, 237.

[24]Ibid., pp. 166, 199, 210; Thomas Knox (ed.) The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay (London: D. Nutt, 1878), pp. 44-45. According to B. G. Blackwood, "Plebeian Catholics in the 1640s and 1650s," Recusant History, 18 (1986), 172, those from a laboring background seemed to have had a preference for serving in the secular clergy.

[25]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 231.

[26]Ibid., p. 220.

[27]John O'Malley, S.J. "Was Ignatius Loyola a Church Reformer? How to Look at Early Modern Catholicism," 77 Catholic Historical Review (1991), 181, 188.

[28]Ignatius Loyola, S.J., The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, trans. George Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970), p. 275, part VII, ch. 2, paragraph 622 d-c.

[29]This was not far different from the argument of Gregory the Great and the landlords' clergy for a millennium. It was, as Paul Meyvaert, "Gregory the Great and the Theme of Authority," Spode House Review, (1966), 24, points out, the age-old justification, in a Christian version, of Roman imperialism, the natural subordination of barbarians to Romans, as slaves to freemen. It turned up "dismayingly often" (ibid., p. 23) in the heroes of the gentry.

[30]Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Questiones quodlibetales, ed. R. Spiazzi (Taurino: Casa Marietti, 1956), I. 7, 2; III. 6, 3; see also, Leonard Boyle, Pastoral Care, Clerical Education, and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London: Variorum, 1981), pt. II: p. 251.

[31]Robert Southwell, quoted in Christopher Haigh, The English Reformation Revised (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 198; see also, Henry Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols., New York: Johnson Reprint Co., [1875], 1966), vol. 1, p. 338; Richard Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests and Other Catholics of both Sexes, that have Suffered Death in England on Religious Accounts from the years 1577 to 1684, ed. John Pollen (London: Burns and Oates, [1803] 1924), p. 232. William Andleby was one of the priests criticized for lowering the priestly dignity by dressing as, living among, and serving congregations of laboring people.

[32]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 252-253, 261, 422.

[33]Christopher Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 31 (1981), 138, 145. Reformers at the Council of Trent had sought legislation that would have forced the clergy to reside in parishes and be pastors. The reformers were on many points defeated. In France, it was only with the Revolution and the Civil Constitution of the Clergy that the pastoral requirement was achieved. See John Steward (ed.), A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1951), document 31, pp. 169-181.

[34]Edwin Beitzell, The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County Maryland (Abell, Md.: n.p., 1976), pp. 15-16; Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 5.

[35]Nicholas Cushner, Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767 (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1982), p. 134. The Jesuits' counterparts in other parts of the colonial world hired secular clergy to attend to the needs of the laboring people, including Indians, who worked on their (the Jesuits') estates. At least in Quito, the Jesuits were mainly involved in ministering to the colonial gentry.

[36]Cecil Calvert, "Instructions Given to Commissioners for my Treasury in Maryland" (Nov. 18, 1645), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, p. 143. The Jesuits may have expected the secular clergy to minister to the Maryland Catholics, but at the same time they attempted to prevent the seculars from migrating to Maryland. See John Krugler, "Lord Baltimore, Roman Catholicism, and Toleration: Religious Policy in Maryland during the Early Catholic Years, 1634-1649," Catholic Historical Review, 65 (1979), 73. They also objected to and asked to be excepted from legislation that required that glebe land be established for the support of pastors. See Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 410.

[37]Psychologically and economically the Maryland clergy identified with the gentry and shared the gentry's low regard for the needs of laboring people. Christopher Bagshaw, A True Relation of the Faction begun by Fr. Persons at Rome (1601), ed. Thomas Law (London: D. Nutt, 1889), p. 105, wrote at the time, "The Jesuits are used to fawn upon men of noble birth, especially if they be rich. They look not after the cottages of the poor, nor minister their help to them, be they ever so much in need." Christopher Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority," pp. 138-139, comments:

The brand of religion which appealed to illiterate peasants offered little satisfaction for the priestly products of the seminaries, Jesuit Colleges, and reformed Benedictine monasteries, who preferred the spiritual life of an educated household. . . If priests became private chaplains to landlords because of the brand of religion they professed, they did so too because of the kind of men they were and their concepts of clerical dignity. . . The devotional works printed for English Catholics were designed for the gentry family. They enjoin a life of piety which created a demand for domestic chaplains, and the patterns of intense family religiosity, was followed in manor-houses across the country.

[38]The clergy complained of having no servants, of the "factious" working men who dominated the Maryland assembly, and of having to live in a "mean" and "vile hut." See Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Lord Baltimore" (Apr. 3, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28, pp. 162, 164, 166, 169; Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, documents, vol. 1, no. 8, T (1655-1656); ibid., text, vol. 2, p. 59.

[39]Virgilio Cepari, The Life of Aloysius Gonzaga [1627] in D. M. Rogers, English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 201, p. 92.

[40]Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 5.

[41]Edward Papenfuse (ed.), A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), p. 15, lists those who were delegates to the Maryland assembly. They have been cross checked with the "Career Files."

[42]John Krugler, "Puritan and Papist: Politics and Religion in Massachusetts and Maryland before the Restoration of Charles II," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1971, p. 171. Both Krugler, ibid. and Russell Menard, "Maryland's Time of Troubles: Sources of Political Disorder in Early Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 76 (1981), 126, have examined the matter and conclude that there was no feud between Protestants and Catholics out of which legislation hostile to the Catholics might have arisen.

[43]Thomas Copley, S.J. "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 3, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," pp. 162-165.

[44]"William Rosewell," in "Career Files," box 21; "John Thimbleby," "Career Files," box 24, and "William Hawley," "Career Files," box 12; Catholic Clergy, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1638), in Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), pp. 119, 122-123.

[45]Copley, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 3, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," pp. 162-165.

[46]Ibid., p. 165; Alfred Dennis, "Lord Baltimore's Struggle with the Jesuits, 1634-1649," Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1 (1900), p. 114. The Roman establishment itself often taught that it was wrong but in its canon law accepted the accumulation or multiple holding of benefices, that is, parish income, and acknowledged that the receiver of the benefices did not have to fill their conditions, that is, serve as pastor. The suspension of such canon law contributed to the pastoral service of the laboring people. See R. H. Helmholz, Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 4. Lyndwood's pre-Reformation collection of canon laws stated that plural holding was valid when apostolic (Roman) dispensation was granted. See J. V. Bullard and H. Chalmer Bell (ed.), Lyndwood's Provinciale: The Text of the Canons Therein contained, reprinted from the translation made in 1534 (London: Faith Press, 1929), pp. 53-54. The English translation of the Provinciale left out Lyndwood's gloss concerning benefices. The gloss can be found in Arthur Ogle, The Canon Law in Medieval England: An Examination of William Lyndwood's "Provinciale" (London: J. Murray, 1912), p. 56, who writes, "The constitutions of Bonifice are penal and concern the liberties of the church and the violation of it. But these constitutions are little observed [in England]." See also Corpus Juris Canonici, vol. 2, Decretales D. Gregorii IX suae integritati una cum glossis, etc., (3 vols., Rome: Populi Romani, 1582), vol. 2, p. 1036 (c. 18, X, III, 5 [Decretales of Gregory IX, book 3, title, 5, chapter 18]); vol. 2, p. 1040 (c. 21, X, III, 5 [ibid., chapter 21]); Charles H. Lefebvre, "Canon Law," New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), vol. 3, p. 51.

[47]The First Statute of Praemunire (27 Edward III, Stat. 1) was enacted in 1353. It is reproduced in Gee, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 103-104. It outlawed legal appeals to Rome and the extension of Roman law to England. Penalties included outlawry, forfeiture, imprisonment, and banishment. Pope Martin V (ruled 1417-1431), as quoted in Ogle, Canon Law in Medieval England, p. 165, protested that the laws against the Jews and Saracens did not have such dire consequences as these. The same purpose had been served prior to praemunire by common law writs of prohibition, of quare impedit, of quare non admisit, of quare non-permittit, and by the long-established right, reaffirmed by an ordinance in 1343, of forbidding the introduction into England of papal bulls prejudicial to the church. See W. T. Waugh, "The Great Statute of Praemunire," English Historical Review, 37 (1922), 193-194, 204. Beginning in the 1480s praemunire began to be applied not only to Roman courts but to litigation in the English church courts. Litigants used common law courts to punish those who sued them in church courts. R. H. Helmholz, Roman Canon Law in Reformation England, p. 33, concludes that by the time of the Reformation, a jurisdictional reformation had already occurred because of the expanded use of praemunire.

[48]Loyola, Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, pp. 267-271, part 7, ch. 1, mandated the requirement of missionary work. The constitutional requirement of service to the gentry was cited earlier. See also John O'Malley, S.J., "To Travel to any Part of the World: Jerome Nadel and the Jesuit Vocation," Studies in the Spirituality of the Jesuits, 15 (1983), 5; John O'Malley, "Renaissance Humanism and the Religious Culture of the First Jesuits," Heythrop Journal, 31 (1990), 482.

[49]O'Malley, "Was Ignatius Loyola a Church Reformer?" pp. 181-182.

[50]The clergy were not able to avoid the congregational ministry, but the Maryland "chief men" and "noble matrons" still seem to have received a disproportionate amount of their services. See Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the Society of Jesus to Europe" (1638), in Foley, Records, vol. 3, p. 371.

[51]Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 456.

[52]Colin A. Palmer, Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), pp. 148-150, describes the process:

The accused person who balked at confessing could be tortured into making an admission of guilt. . . The most common offenses were blasphemy, sorcery, and witchcraft. . . . In its efforts to foster religious orthodoxy, the Inquisition relentlessly pursued blasphemers among the Mexican population, slave and free.

[53]The gentry's manipulation of the clergy resulted in the laboring people's renunciation of the master's God to whose established order the laborer was to be obedient. One scholar who has studied the Mexican courts, Colin Palmer, Ibid., p. 152, comments:

Blasphemy appeared to be the instinctive reaction by a slave to an unbearable situation. In this sense they were no different from the ordinary Spaniard, who used blasphemous words as a matter of course. Blasphemous expressions seem to have been in the mouth of everyone, ineradicable by the most severe legislation.

[54]"The Process Against William Lewis, Francis Gray, Robert Sedgrave" (July 3, 1638), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 35-37.

[55]Anthony Allison, "A Question of Jurisdiction, Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon and the Catholic Laity, 1625-1631," Recusant History, 7 (1982-1983), 112, 127; Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, pp. 207-208, 212, 214.

[56]Thomas White, The Middle State of Souls from the hour of death to the day of judgment (London: n.p., 1659), pp. 205-206; Allison, "A Question of Jurisdiction," p. 136; John Milton, "A Reformation of England," The Prose Works of John Milton (5 vols., London: H. G. Bohn, 1881), vol. 2, pp. 402-404. Only one purgatory bequest to "pray for the souls of me and my wife" was upheld by the Maryland provincial court during the mid-seventeenth-century period. This occurred in 1656, at a point when the provincial court had just recently come under the exclusive control of the Presbyterians. The Presbyterians may not have recognized the purgatory nature of the bequest or they may have been more liberal on the subject than the Catholics. See "William Johnson" (June 7, 1656), "Career Files"; Graham, "Lord Baltimore's Pious Enterprise," p. 97.

[57]Beitzell, Jesuit Missions, p. 28.

[58]The waste of clerical resources in estate administration was common in the Latin American missions. See, Cushner, Farm and Factory, pp. 11-16, 59, 134.

[59]Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the Jesuits" (1639), in Hall, Narratives of Early Maryland, p. 124, stated that Fernando Poulton (John Brock, d. Apr. 1641), was assigned to the Mattapany plantation. The clergy were among the largest Maryland landowners and at some points had 20 or more indentured servants under their command.

[60]Gerald Fogarty, "The Origins of the Mission, 1634-1773," Maryland Jesuits: 1634-1833 (Baltimore: n.p., 1976), p. 23; Peter Finn, "The Slaves of the Jesuits in Maryland," unpublished M. A. Thesis, Georgetown University, 1974, pp. 4, 45, 94-100, 103, 119.

[61]Urban VIII, litt. ap. "Ex Debito," (Feb. 22, 1633), section 8, as cited in Joseph Brunni, The Clerical Obligations of Canon 139 and 142 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1937), p. 70.

[62]Carl Everstine, The General Assembly of Maryland, 1634-1776 (Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1980), p. 42; Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (Nov. 10, 1641), in Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, documents, vol. 1, pp. 162-168; "An Act Concerning Purchasing land from the Indians" (Apr. 21, 1649), in Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 248.

[63]"Letter to Edward Knott, S.J." (Sept. 3, 1639), in Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 459; "Letter to Thomas Copley, S.J." (Sept. 3, 1639), in ibid., text, vol. 1, p. 458; Bradley Johnson, The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of the Act Concerning Religion in Maryland, in Fund Publications (Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1883), vol. 18, p. 67.

[64]Nelson Rightmyer, Maryland's Established Church (Baltimore: Diocese of Maryland, 1956), p. 14.

[65]"Act for the Authority of Justices of the Peace" (Mar. 1639), in Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 53; Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 454; Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the Jesuits," in Hall, Narratives of Early Maryland, pp. 119, 122; Beitzell, Jesuit Missions, p. 4-5.

[66]Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 2, p. 47.

[67]Catholic Clergy, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1638), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 119, 122-123.

[68]Beitzell, Jesuit Missions, pp. 11, 15-16.

[69]Ibid., pp. 7-8, 11, 25-26; William Treacy, Old Catholic Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missions (Swedenboro, N.J.: n.p., 1889), p. 59.

[70]Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an Account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co., 1923), vol. 1, pp. 409, 433-434, writes that the established church in Ireland had little wealth such as parish benefices to attract clergy. The confiscated monastic lands had gone to the Catholic and Protestant landlords. On the other hand, there were 1,000 continental-educated Catholic clergy in Ireland by the 1610s.

[71]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 193.

[72]A. D. Wright, "Catholic History, North and South Revisited," Northern History, 25 (1989), 123.

[73]Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority," pp. 138, 145.

[74]Nicholas Postgate, quoted in ibid., p. 145. The circuits of some clergy, such as that of the Jesuit, Thomas Gascoigne, S.J., extended for 200 miles and took a month to complete. At his home base, Gascoigne lived in a cottage and chopped his own wood for fire. In some places the congregations of mainly tenants and yeomen owned their own chapel or held services in barns and farmyards. A few congregations numbered up to 200 people. See Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 161, 234, 252-253, 261; Challoner, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, pp. 232, 339; Foley, Records, vol. 3, pp. 91, 101; vol. 7, pt. 2, pp. 1111-1112.

[75]According to the 1636 ship money valuation, Lancashire was the second poorest county in England. See B. G. Blackwood, "The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660," Chetham Society, 25 (1978), 3; James E. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices in England from the year after the Oxford Parliament (1257) to the Commencement of the Continental War (1793) (7 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1866-1092), vol. 5, pp. 70, 104-105.

[76]Christopher Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 332, writes that "there are few hints of a substantial anglican presence in Lancashire, except in the sense of a mere passive conformity, until after the Civil War."

[77]Aveling, Northern Catholics, p. 252.

[78]W. K. Jordan, The Charities of Rural England, 1480-1660: The Aspirations and Achievements of the Rural Society (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961), p. 21.

[79]Ibid., p. 286.

[80]Haigh, Reformation and Resistance, p. 22.

[81]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 236.

[82]It is of interest that in New England the General Court took measures not unlike those in Maryland: the common law court, not the clergy, was given jurisdiction over disputes concerning church land. See John Winthrop, Winthrop's Journal: History of New England, ed. James K. Hosmer (2 vols., 1853), vol. 2, pp. 19-21 (October 1640). The General Court, not the clergy controlled the frequency of church assemblies. See ibid., vol. 1, pp. 390-392 (Dec. 3, 1639). The clergy were forbidden from punishing (excommunicating) those who wrongfully discharged the duties of public office. See ibid., vol. 1, pp. 299-300 (November 1639). No cleric or even church elder could be a civil official. See ibid., vol. 1, p. 97 (July 1632). Richard Hoskins, "The Original Separation of Church and State in America," Journal of Law and Religion, 2 (1984), 231, classifies such acts as examples of "extreme" separation of church and state: "This is a degree of separation which, today, would probably be held an unlawful infringement of the religious freedom of the church guaranteed by the the first amendment." Hoskins seems to see the separation of church and state only from the perspective of the crown and the Act of Supremacy (26 Henry VIII, c. I [1534]). The crown (civil government) was supreme over the church and there was no separation. However, in New England and Maryland, the legislative assemblies exercised an even stricter supremacy than the crown over the church. The crown allowed among other things, church courts, clerical jurisdiction over church land and church services, and the clerical right to excommunicate civil officials. Under Hoskins definition, the Maryland Catholics would be extreme separationists.

[83]Morton, Freedom in Arms, p. 73.