Charles County, from its 2 Romanist Clergymen, Prince George Co., from its 3 parishes, having 3 Clergymen, sent Frederick Co., from its 2 parishes, having 2 Clergymen, sent Ann Arundel Co., from its 5 parishes, having 4 Clergy Baltimore Co., from its 4 parishes, having 4 Clergy men, sent 66 the Quakers, sent men, sent £ s. d. 45 19 3 196 16 9 56 9 6 4 16 0 3 5 ཐ མིལ ཝ 127 92 142 14 the Romanists" Cecil Co., from its 2 parishes, having 2 Clergymen, sent Queen Anne Co., from its 4 parishes, having 4 Clergy men, sent Talbot Co., from its 2 parishes, having 2 Clergymen, Dorchester Co., from its 3 parishes, having 3 Clergy Somerset Co., from its 3 parishes, having 3 Clergymen, the Presbyterians, sent 66 2 2 90064OLO6 120 18 10 2 sent 232 19 men, sent 123 16 2 sent 109 43 03 6 1 Thus from the 14 Counties, The Church, from its 42 parishes, having 41 Min The other denominations than the Church, sent £315 12 11 of this amount. £1,839 0 10 It will be seen that while, since 1700, the increase of Counties had been only three, that of the parishes had been twelve. The next statement we give is from Mr. Eddis, dated April 2, 1772, then Surveyor of Customs, residing at Annapolis. Writing to a friend in England, he says, "their number [the Romanists] are at present very inconsiderable, and their influence of no weight in the concerns of the Province." More testimony, indeed, might be presented, concurring with what has now been brought forward. But this is deemed sufficient to sustain the fact, that Maryland never was "Catholic Maryland,” notwithstanding the slang of our School Histories, and speeches of politicians. We have here, all these documents, running through a period of one hundred and thirtyfive years,-documents which have never been impeached, never contradicted, all telling the same story. As a fitting appendix to the foregoing, we conclude this paper with the following extract from the speech of Governor Hart, to the General Assembly of Maryland, in 1720, copied from its proceedings. "Gentlemen:-The pretence of the Romanists that Maryland was granted as an asylum to them, from the rigor of the penal laws in England, is a position of theirs which has long amused the world. It was an imposition. For they cannot have a better right, than what the Charter admits them to, and, in my opinion, there is so far from a provision made therein that the government should be in their hands, in any degree, that there is not an exception made for the exercise of their Religion. It hath been affirmed, that Cecelius, Lord Baltimore, published a declaration, inviting all persons that believed on the name of Jesus Christ, to settle and inhabit this Province, promising them equal privileges. Yet I presume it will be admitted, that noble Lord could not give greater powers than he had.' 66 For, after all the privileges mentioned in the Charter, toward the conclusion, there is this provision made, namely:-"provided always, that no interpretation be admitted thereof, by which God's holy and truly Christian Religion, or the allegiance due unto us, our heirs and successors, may in any wise suffer any prejudice or diminution.' The Charter was granted by King Charles the First, who was a Protestant, and certainly could not intend the proviso for any other Religion, than that of which he was a zealous professor. But to make this the more evident, it is expressly stipulated in the body of the Charter, that all churches, chapels, and oratories, be dedicated and consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical law of the kingdom of England. VOL. XVIII. 4* This so well explains itself, that it wants no comment. I am only surprised, from what latent cause the Papists derive any privileges here, beyond what the connivance of Government may indulge them in. "In reply, the Lower House of Assembly said :-'We know of no legal right they [the Papists] have to any more than they enjoy,'" &c. This, it may be remembered, was the publicly expressed and received view of those in the highest places of authority in Maryland, one hundred and twenty-five years ago. ART. III.-DR. BEARDSLEY'S HISTORY. The History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, from the settlement of the Colony to the death of Bishop Seabury. By E. EDWARDS BEARDSLEY, D.D., Rector of St. Thomas' Church, New Haven. New York: Hurd & Houghton. Boston: E. P. Dutton & Co. 1865. pp. 470. To write the history of a single Diocese is no easy task. The larger field of a National Church allows wider views, and sweeps away many matters of minute detail. The narrower limit of a single Parish requires detail, and excuses from more general statements. But the Diocese is the very point where the general and the minute-of very need-so meet and mingle, that their adjustment becomes a delicate, and, often, a perplexing task. We mention it at the outset, as a prime excellence in Dr. Beardsley's admirable History, that he has succeeded in this point of capital difficulty. The life-giving detail always keeps the interest alive, while yet it never clogs the march and movement of the general view. In fact, the two work together; and whether the author gained this point spontaneously, or toiled for it with conscious labor, he has gained it, and, in so doing, achieved no mean success. A second excellence of which we wish to speak before we proceed to other things, is found in the distribution of the subject matter, the divisions of the period treated of. Somebody once said, that he never sat down to read a History till he had looked over the table of contents, and saw how the author laid out his plans; deciding, by this, whether to read or to let alone. It was no unwise precaution. An intelligent division makes an intelligent history, and vice versa. In the one case you have an articulated body of facts, in the other a hap-hazard jumble. Dr. Beardsley's admirable division has much to do with the lucid clearness of his narration. These greater excellencies include most minor ones. And so Connecticut and the Church at large have to thank our author for a work, so well done that it leaves nothing to be desired except its continuance and completion. The writer of the History of our Church in any part of New England, finds himself, of course, brought at once into contact with the Puritans, and is forthwith driven to the ungracious work of the iconoclast. It is impossible to tell the plain historic truth, without exposing the hollowness and shams of the image so long worshipped. It is difficult to make the exposure which truth demands, and yet do the justice which is equally required. It is easy to picture men as saints: it is easy to paint them as sinners. But to bring out the mixture of qualities, characteristics and motives, which, in nine cases out of ten, forms the task of the historian, is another, and a much more difficult thing. And the difficulty is greatly increased when, as in the present case, unreal claims dispose people to look with suspicion upon real ones. If the Puritans are likely, in these days, to be rated at a lower than their real worth, it is simply the result of the pertinacious claim which has been so long set up for them, of purposes which they never entertained, and principles from which they would have shrunk with horror. One sentence, quoted by our author from Dr. Trumbull's History of Connecticut, brings out the unreal claim, the pressing of which has, as we have said, driven people to the other extreme. "The settlement of New England, purely for the purposes of religion, and the propagation of CIVIL and RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, is an event which has no parallel in the history of modern ages." Now that civil and religious liberty have come to be the possession of the dwellers in New England, is quite true. That the Puritans intended to make them their possession, that they knew, recognised or possessed the principles of either form of liberty, is utterly untrue. They claimed liberty for themselves, they never intended to give it to others. Nor can they be asserted to be its founders, by any other process than a free use of the fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc. They brought with them to New England "the stock of |