was severe in appearance, probably mild in practice. Blasphemy, sacrilege, sorcery, and idolatry were all capital crimes. The mention of this last in a community founded by a Papist and in large part inhabited by Papists, must have sounded a strange piece of hypocrisy in the ears of Puritans. Such a code is wholly at variance with the true principles of religious liberty. Yet we may be sure that the Non-conformist (Protestant) was better off under the rule of Papists who were amenable to English law and in some degree to English public opinion, than he would have been in a strictly Anglican community. An Act was also passed re-enacting the statute of Edward III., which enforced the eating of fish on certain days. That statute had been passed by a Protestant legislature (in England) in the interests of commerce, and possibly of public health and economy. The Romanists of Maryland reenacted it on behalf of the usage of their own church." pp. 297-8.

Of the more famous legislation ten years later, our author

says:

"On the one hand it imposed certain definite restraints on freedom of speech. To deny the doctrine of the Trinity was a capital crime. To blaspheme the Virgin or the Saints was punishable with fine and whipping. Finally, in apparent defiance of the spirit just shown, a general clause gave full toleration to all Christians. It is easy to point out how such an Act fell short of an ideal standard of religious liberty. Practically we may be sure that it did at least as much for the protection of conscience as could have been achieved at that day by the most elaborately philosophical legislation. To have attempted openly and professedly to protect the avowed unbeliever would have exposed the whole system to failure." p. 305.

Our author recognizes the influx of Puritans from Virginia after the legislation of 1639, and he treats of it before he describes that of 1649. "The precise date and manner of their immigration," he says, "cannot be discovered." We believe that it was in consequence of negotiations with them that resulted in the commission of a Virginia Protestant as Governor. If so, it was about the time Stone took office (1648). Mr. Bancroft, we have seen, recognizes a subsequent immigration only. This does not account for the facts,-moreover the better part of a year intervened between Stone's ap

pointment and the "Act concerning Religion," and a longer period between the beginning of conciliation of Puritans by Baltimore and the Act. Bozman recognizes their breaking up in Virginia in 1648, and Stone's negotiations earlier. ii. 370-1. The decisive consideration, however, as to the date of this immigration, is the explicit statement of Hammond, a contemporary, that the Act was passed after the Puritans "came over" from Virginia, i. e. after they began to come.* That the Act was plainly a compromise, as Mr. Doyle recognizes, supports this affirmation. So does the fact that when the Commissioners of Parliament eight years later restored the colony to Baltimore, they stipulated with him "that all the Puritan party who wished to leave the country should have a year in which to do so," (Hist., p. 154), and that he should "never repeal the law giving freedom of worship," (English Colonies, p. 312.) As clear as it is that he was the author of the first oath binding his Governor not to molest any one of his own faith, so clear it is that he was not the author of the later provisions in behalf of religious sentiments contrary thereto. As well ascribe to him the Puritan Sunday provisions of the Act of 1649, as others which he had to pledge himself to Puritans not to violate.†

We have now the substantially consentaneous judgment of two able historians, one each side the sea, drawing from original sources, upon questions that have long been obscured by vague declamation and partisan assertions. The cool judicial settlement of these questions is not likely to be reversed, or

*"There are strong grounds to believe that the majority of the members of this assembly of 1649 were Protestants, if not Protestants of the puritanic order. Governor Stone and a majority of the council were Protestants. There are strong reasons for a supposition that a majority of the other house of assembly were Protestants also; inasmuch as they certainly were at the next session of 1650." This "inasmuch" of Bozman has no force if the assembly of 1650 was made Protestant by immigration caused by the Act of 1649, which is what Mr. Bancroft's text would lead us to infer. "The inhabitants now formed a heterodox mixture of almost every Christian sect." Bozman ii. 356.

+"The declaration and certificate" of Protestants, April 17, 1650, that they "enjoyed all fitting and convenient liberty in the exercise of religion under his lordship's government and interest" is hardly consistent with his originating anything in the Act, though Bozman infers that he was the author of it.

even disturbed. The sources are well explored. The acts and the actors in the early colonial years are clearly seen. Whatever governmental domination is conceded to Romanism at the outset (with qualifications), the day is now gone by for regarding Maryland as other than a mixed colony from the first, shaped by the financial aims of its founder, or the best of its legislation as due at all to Roman Catholic influence, individual or aggregate.

ARTICLE V.-THE DECLINE OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH.

THE title of the article by Bishop McQuaid in a recent number of the North American Review, "The Decay of Protestantism," suggests the proposition which it essays to prove. Tried by the test of doctrinal soundness and of numerical strength, the Catholic bishop reasons that the Protestant Church in the United States is dying. Specially to controvert his proposition is not the purpose of the present paper. Its aim is rather to point out certain changes which have in the last decade occurred in the membership of the churches, and in particular to make a few suggestions regarding the relatively slow increase in the membership of the Congregational church.

In these ten years the population of the United States has increased more than twelve millions, or thirty-one per cent. The gain in membership of at least three churches has been even more rapid. In this period the Baptist church has added nearly a million names to its rolls. This enormous gain is mainly confined to the Southern States. To the colored churches is to be credited more than one half of this increase, and other churches in the South receive the large share of the remainder. The percentage of gain is no less than sixty-three. The Episcopal church has likewise increased by a ratio nearly as large, namely, sixty-two per cent. In 1870 it had 207,762 members; in 1880 it had 338,333 members. The Methodist church has added more than a million names to the list of its communicants. The gain is by no means as proportionally large in the South as in the case of the Baptist body; but the gain in the North is much larger. The entire gain is fortythree per cent. The increase of the Presbyterian church is exactly on the level with the increase of the populationthirty-one per cent. In 1880 it had 224,173 more members than in 1870. The enlargement is quite equally divided among the various branches which spring from the Presbyterian trunk and which bear its name.

As we approach the Congregational church, however, we cross the line of the percentage of increase in the population. Although the Baptist and the Episcopal churches have increased twice as rapidly as the population, although the Methodist church has increased somewhat more rapidly than the population, although the Presbyterian church has increased as rapidly as the population, the Congregational church has not even kept pace with the population. The population has gained thirty-one per cent., and the Congregational church twenty-three.

In many of the States the per centage of increase of the members in Congregational churches is much larger than twentythree; but they are States in which the number of members is absolutely small. In Alabama the Congregational church has gained more than five hundred per cent.; but in 1881 the total membership was less than a thousand. In Colorado it has gained four hundred and sixty per cent., but the whole number of members hardly exceeds a thousand. In Dakota population has gained eight hundred and fifty-three per cent., and the Congregational membership eight hundred and seventy-six, but this membership represents only about a thousand persons. In Washington Territory the Congregational church has gained eight hundred and thirty-six per cent., but the total membership in 1881 was only three hundred and eighty-four. Likewise in Wyoming Territory is a gain of six hundred and sixty per cent., yet the total membership remains less than two hundred persons.

The following lists represent the per centage of increase of population and Congregational membership in each of the States for the last decade. Pennsylvania and Kentucky are omitted because of certain defects in the reports of the Congregational churches of these States which would have rendered any comparison unfair.