To return to CWPublisher homepage, click on https://www.angelfire.com/un/cwp/

NOTE: This is an HTML-formatted copy of the 2011 edition. That edition had 196 pages of text, with an additional 24 pages of front material, which includes a title page, a listing of contents, acknowledgments and preface. The illustrations are omitted. They can be seen in the PDF edition, which is available on-line. Page numbers have been inserted in this HTML edition that correspond with the numbering in the original edition. But in some cases these page numbers do not exactly correspond with the page numbers listed in the index. If the item listed in the index is not found on the listed page, it will be in the preceding or following page. In order to make the book reader-friendly, the publishers cataloging-in-publication data has been placed at the end of the document.

Liberation Theology Along the Potomac:
Labor's Golden Rule
in Early American Catholicism

Edward Terrar

CWP

Silver Spring, Maryland

2011

[FRONT MATERIAL, 2011 ed., p. iii]

Contents

List of Illustrations and Maps. v

Acknowledgments. vi

Preface. vii
Maryland Scholarship. ix
Anti-Catholicism. xiii

Chapter 1 The European Working-Class Background. 1
Liberation Theology's Celebration of Labor. 2
Working-Class Clergy. 6
Labor-Value. 9
Antinomianism. 11
Agrarian Antinomianism. 16
Cecil Calvert Levelled. 19
Enclosures Levelled. 24
Revolution Against Capitalist Theology: Racism. 27
Capitalist Theology: Obedience and Labor. 30
Conclusion. 35

Chapter 2 Labor Value: Crux of Liberation Theology and the Golden Rule. 37
The Maryland Catholics. 37
A Charism of "Hard Labor." 39
Work Life. 41
Indian Work Life. 45
Labor's Celebration 46
Labor Value. 49
Class (Distributive) Justice: Collective Economics & Token Alms. 52
Just Price. 61
Conclusion. 64

Chap. 3 Grass-Roots Antinomianism: Agrarian Reform & Subsistence Farming 65
Agrarian Reform. 65
Squatting. 68
Sharecropping and Wage Labor. 69
Subsistence Farming. 70
Dealing on Labor's Terms. 75
Labor Reform. 78
Contracting on Labor's Terms. 81
Conclusion. 83

Chapter 4 Collective Antinomianism: Labor’s Golden Governmental Rule. 85
A Parliamentary Model. 86
The Golden Rule and The Royalists' "Time of Troubles" (1644-1646). 88
Parliamentary Rage and Fury: 1650s. 92
Antinomian Judiciary. 96
Taxation. 98
Conclusion. 102

Chapter 5 Antinomianism’s Golden Rule in the Church. 105
The Clergy. 105

[FRONT MATERIAL, 2011 ed., p. iv]

Praemunire: No Church Courts or Canon Law. 109
Episcopacy Outlawed. 115
Regulation of Convents, Mortmain and Tithes. 118
Pastoral Legislation. 122
Resistance to Clerical Capitalism. 131
Conclusion. 133

Chapter 6 Resistance to Landlord Theology. 135
Blood and Family Racism. 135
Indian-European National Chauvinism. 141
Africans. 147
Conclusion. 151

Chapter 7 Conclusion. 153

Bibliography. 159

Index. 179

(Figure omitted)

Figure 0-1: A 1641 woodcut showing how the people took the law into their own hands against monopolists like Cecil Calvert. The caption above it reads, "The manner and form how projectors and patentors have rode a tilting in parliament time.”[1]

[FRONT MATERIAL, 2011 ed., p. v]

List of Illustrations and Maps

Figure 0-1: Protest against Monopoly. iv

Figure 0-2: Soldiers. v

Figure 0-3: William Sampson, S.J. vi

Figure 0-4: Weights and Money. xxi

Figure 1-1: Tobacco Farmer. 36

Figure 2-1: Laboring Trades. 64

Figure 3-1: Leveling of Calvert’s In-Laws. 84

Figure 4-1: Leveling the Monarchy: Charles I ‘s Execution. 104

Figure 5-1: Landlord Catholicism 134

Figure 6-1: Algonquian Boatmakers 152

Figure 7-1: Tobacco Husbandry. 157

Figure 7-2: Map of Europe, Africa and America. 158

Figure 8-1: Old St. Pauls, London. 177

Figure 8-2: Maryland Indian Locations in the Seventeenth Century. 178

Figure 9-1: Post-in-the Ground House Construction 191

Figure 9-2: Map of Spain in the Time of Ignatius Loyola. 192

Figure 9-3: Map of Civil War Period Catholic England, Wales and Ireland. 196

(Figure omitted)

Figure 0-2: Blue and white soldier series on Dutch delftware tiles similar to tiles recovered from Civil War Maryland housing.[2]

[FRONT MATERIAL, 2011 ed., p. vi]

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge those who helped in making this study: Betty Clark, Maryanne Finkelstein, George Hampsch, Christopher Hill, Pat Knight, Gary Nash, Irma Pazmiño, Dean Richards, Stephen and Krystyna Panusz Startari, Terry Sullivan, Dean Taylor, E. F. Terrar, Jr., Hazel, David, Celine, Antoine, and Alexia Terrar and the Los Angeles Maryknoll community. Those acknowledged are in no way responsible for errors of fact or interpretation.

If this study were dedicated to anyone, it would be to William Sampson, S.J., my friend since youth. Had he still been with us, his editorial assistance would have improved it. My politics were lost on him, but his example in living the evangelical councils of perfection, which included a life of resistance to his religious order, was not lost on me.

(Figure omitted)

William Sampson, S.J. (1928-2000)

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. vii]

PREFACE

Liberation theology is what Catholic working people operating in their Basic Christian Communities (BCCs) in Latin America, Africa and Asia have been calling their beliefs in recent years. The term reflects their conviction that the fight for class justice is fundamental to their life, family and relations with others. The term is new, but the argument here is that the belief in class struggle being at the heart of religion has been around for as long as there have been classes.

This is a history of such beliefs and the resulting conflict in early America. Specifically, it is about colonial Maryland in the first-half of the 17th century. This was the period of the English Civil War (1640-1660) and of the early European settlement in North America. The Catholics established a society and a theology along the Potomac River that abolished the class system. The basis of their religion and society was labor. Through revolutionary conflict their agrarian, labor and nationality programs triumphed at the grass roots and at the provincial level in church and state over both local capitalism and foreign imperialism. Their descendants who struggle with similar problems and a federal government along the Potomac can find guidance and courage in looking at their roots.

In looking at the roots, one can see that capitalism's hatred for working-class theology in the 17th century was no less than it is now. In the 17th century, Cecil Calvert (1605-1675), a would-be land monopolist, was typical. He called worker beliefs "atheism," "pretended religion" and enslaving. In 1649 he baited the Maryland assembly on the evil of its theology for defending the "people's liberty":

By woeful experience it has been found in divers nations that no one thing has so certainly betrayed the people into true slavery indeed, as the deceitful suggestions of subtle machiavellians pretending religion, and an extraordinary care of the people's liberty. Such religion possesses them with fears and jealousies of slavery, thereby to alienate their affections from the present government. The common way to atheism is by a pretended reformation in matters of religion, so the direct road to bondage is usually found in specious pretenses of preservation of liberty.[3]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. viii]

What the wealthy hated about worker religion was that it was as much about the here-and-now as about the here-after. If the monopolists had had their way, worker religion would have dealt only with "safe" themes like "praising, reverencing, and serving" God, as found in sources such as Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Exercises (1548), which Calvert promoted in Maryland. The present-day theologian, Juan Luis Segundo, S.J. notes that these safe themes are "devoid of christological influence," that is, of class justice.[4]

In Segundo’s analysis, "praising" and "reverencing" are not human responses to a concrete love but the first prehuman consequence of the creature's discovery of its condition as a creature, wherein human freedom plays no positive role. The "service" in such is considered a means to an ahistorical end. It is not seen as a vocation to build a just society, but a goal or test envisioned to save one's soul.[5] The conception of life-as-test, which has circulated at least since the book of Wisdom, makes the only important moment in life to be the moment of death, when the test ends and one either passes or fails.[6] "Service" and its equation with life-as-test makes the avoidance of sin and the attainment of heaven of supreme importance. The concept of sin is individual.[7] This was not the case, argues liberation theology, for the historical Jesus, for whom sin was social. Sin involved every fault that posed an obstacle to the reign of God on earth.

What avoidance of sin meant for the capitalist class and groups like the Jesuit clergy, as Segundo has shown of his own religious order, was a lack of corporate commitment to contribute creatively to establishing God's reign on earth. Segundo writes, "Jesus took an interest in concrete human affairs. . . This sin of omission by the Jesuits is crucial, especially as society depends on complex mechanisms that operate (and even kill) by themselves."[8] Segundo is burdened with his order’s own version of the “Big Lie.” They live communist lives and enjoy the benefits: free education, food, housing, transportation, health care, a guaranteed job and security in old age, yet they would deny communism to the class whose labor creates these benefits.

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. ix]

Maryland's early Catholics often resisted ahistorical doctrines and made complex mechanisms such as the market and politics serve justice. They did not accept the "hardship" associated with the class system and which the landlords mystified by doctrines such as the cross, the passion, poverty, insults, hunger, thirst, cold, death, and abuses. Segundo's comments about Ignatius Loyola also apply to the class system from which he obtained his beliefs:

Loyola lost sight of the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus appear to go out looking for poverty, abuses, or death. He accepts them because his mission confronts him with the alternative of enduring them or giving up that mission. . . This preference of God's for the poor does not lead Jesus to make himself even poorer but rather to introduce a terrible conflict into Israel by shouldering the cause of the poor.[9]

Loyola’s religion had its "safe" doctrines. The Maryland workers had their own doctrines that resulted in "terrible conflict" and a more just society.

Maryland Scholarship. This history of Potomac theology is a condensation of a longer work on the same subject published in 1996.[10] John Brown, another student of Potomac theology, confessed shortly before being hung, that he was "yet too young to understand" the justice of the established order:

Had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends - either father, mother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class - and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them (Luke 6:3). It teaches me further to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them (Hebrews 6:3). I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done in behalf of His despised poor, is no wrong but right.[11]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. x]

This present essayist is likewise “yet too young” to unlearn the labor theory of value, which was the golden rule of his ancestors: Charity and Barbary (Jones) Stafford, Claude, Edmunds and Adjer Hogan, Edward Luther Terrar, Edward Francis Terrar, David and Anne (Elias) Terrar, Peter Gergen and Ray and Rosie Horney.

The theology of liberation challenges the Disney World accounts that dominate academic history and bookstore chains. Capitalism likes to exaggerate the importance of the conflicts that are of a religious, racial, or sexual nature, and to deny that there are basic class differences and extol class cooperation.[12] Even working-class partisan academics, such as the Oxford English Civil War historian Christopher Hill, have been fooled. Hill discussed this when commenting on an earlier draft of this present essay. He noted that in the past he had over- emphasized religion in explaining Catholic history at the expense of a more common sense class explanation. He wrote:

In a valuable recent study Edward Terrar has challenged easy generalizations like “the North and South-West of England were preponderantly Catholic and therefore royalist during the civil war”—of which among others I have been guilty. Poor Catholic peasants were no less able than poor Protestants to perceive when they were being exploited; and they formed at least 80 per cent of the Catholic population. Some among them may have found aspects of Parliament’s politics attractive—abolition of Ship Money, for instance—and have sympathized with radical ideas like abolition of tithes and opposition to monopolies and enclosure. Many Catholic tenants seized the opportunity of the civil war to refuse to pay rents and to loot landlord property, irrespective of creed. This seems common sense once it is stated, and Dr. Terrar is to be congratulated on drawing our attention to it, and providing a good deal of evidence to back up his case. Catholicism, as Pascal’s tirades against the Jesuits show, could adapt itself to a commercial society no less than Protestantism could, given the appropriate circumstances. Terrar’s study is a very good start here, but we may perhaps push it a little further than he does. Need we think only of Catholic peasants?[13]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xi]

In contrast to capitalist religion, working people know that class, not religious, conflicts are basic, and cannot be resolved as long as classes with opposing relationships to property exist.[14] Capitalists like the Rockefellers tried to buy off art and undermine socialist realism in the 1930s by funding social conservatives to produce abstract art. The historical counterpart was the funding of projects like the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and schools such as the University of Chicago that celebrated capitalism, racism and clericalism.[15] A more accurate history of Colonial Williamsburg can be found not in the William and Mary Quarterly but in the present-day history of Local 25 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employers Union in Williamsburg.[16]

The working class artist, Philip Bonosky commented on the similar calculated philistinism in World War II Germany:

The most successful force at the command of any tyranny to suppress independent thought is not primarily a police force armed to the teeth, though that helps - not concentration camps - not even firing squads. The most powerful force at the disposal of any ruling class to dull the consciousness, and even the wits of its peoples, is calculated philistinism, built up from childhood. It was not the SS threat which stilled the German middle-class consciousness. It was a sausage; it was the philistinism of a bourgeois life.[17]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xii]

An army of academic historians allow their wits to be dulled in exchange for sausage. They are like the "invincibly ignorant" Protestants, who the pre-Vatican II hierarchy told Catholics need not be proselytized. Scripture describes them as "whitewashed tombs," which outwardly look beautiful, but inside are full of dead people's bones and every kind of defilement and lawlessness (Mt. 23:27-28).

This essay follows the example of those working people who rely on their theological traditions and history as a guide for living. Theology which ignores history does not liberate but enslaves. Illustrative of such mis-guided theology is that of the Catholic priest Tissa Balasuriya at Aquinas University College in Sri Lanka. He writes:

Communism is a medium through which the values of the West, such as those of Greek civilization, Roman order, the European renaissance, the industrial and technological revolutions, the secularist humanism and Judaeo-Christian messianism, present themselves to Asia without the repulsive odor of Western colonialism and economic imperialism or the humiliating foreignness of the Christian missionary methods. Historical Marxism is essentially a serious-minded, humanist, collectivist reaction against the individualistic, sentimental, asocial, pietistic Christianity of 19th-century Europe.[18]

Balasuriya has something to learn about both his Catholic and communist traditions. Class struggle in Asia did not start in the 19th century. The colonialism, economic imperialism and humiliating foreignness of capital was being fought by the Asian working class a millennium before the Europeans appeared. To the extent the rank and file assimilated Catholicism, which started in the 15th century, if not earlier, it was on their own terms, not those of the individualistic, sentimental, asocial, pietistic capitalists. Nor was communism a medium for values such as "Greek civilization, Roman order, European renaissance, secularist humanism and Judaeo-Christian messianism." Communism celebrated the slave revolts against "Greek civilization," the agrarian reform of the "Roman order," the peasant revolts against the religion and political-economy of the European renaissance and the religious, not secular humanism of the working class.

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xiii]

Anti-Catholicism. Capitalist historiography in emphasizing religious, racial and sexual conflict and in denying basic class differences and extolling class cooperation, makes much of anti-Catholicism.[19] Nevertheless, since World War II a number of historians dealing with Civil-War England and Maryland on a county level have found an absence of religious conflict.[20] As historian Caroline Hibbard comments:

The great value of the county studies has been to demonstrate in detail how mistaken this picture [of anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism] was, and how normal, even uneventful, was the life led by many English Catholics. Religion served as a pretext for occasional legal or even physical attacks upon Catholic gentry, but investigations of such incidents usually turn up the familiar motives for local feuding--personality, property, and prestige.[21]

To the extent there was animosity against the hierarchy, it was largely a reflection of class differences. Catholic working people no less than Protestant workers promoted this "anti-Catholicism," which included rejecting the claims of the papacy to anything but a fraternal (not paternal or superior) relation. Such "anti-Catholicism" was an English tradition. The claim of the Roman emperor and later of Charlemagne and his successors to be above the law had never been a popular doctrine. The papacy’s attempts to make law on its own was likewise rejected.[22]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xiv]

The popular theology embodied in the "penal" laws against Roman landlord interference in the English church had been on the books for centuries prior to the Reformation.[23] The First Statute of Praemunire was enacted in 1353. It outlawed legal appeals to Rome and the extension of Roman law to England.[24] Penalties included outlawry, forfeiture, imprisonment, and banishment. Pope Martin V (ruled 1417-1431) protested that the laws against the Jews and Saracens did not have such dire consequences as these.[25]

The "Second Statute of Praemunire" (1393) made it treason for anyone to allow Rome to interfere with the election of bishops.[26] 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.[27] The popular nature of the English Catholic "penal" tradition was commented on at the time by one who disliked it. Robert Persons, S.J. (1546-1610), an English Jesuit, remarked:

If we caste back our eyes unto the former times in England, we shall find that for above five hundred years, even from the Conquest and entrance of the Normans and French Governors over our country, they have ever continued a certain faction and emulation of the laity against the clergy, which did make the path by little and little unto that open schism, heresy and apostasy, whereunto at length it fell.[28]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xv]

In emphasizing religion and in denying class conflict, capitalist historians make much of Catholic martyr and “siege history.”[29] Overly relying on the gentry's pamphlets, especially from the period of the 1688 revolution, it maintains that anti-Catholicism was "the strongest, most widespread, and most persistent ideology in the life and thought of the seventeenth-century British and constituted one of the forces making for national unity."[30] But as noted, recent local studies on the subject do not support this conclusion. There was as much class-based disunity on religious, economic, and political issues as there was unity. The disunity was great enough to bring civil war. It was not Catholics who the Independents and levelers purged from Parliament in 1648. The Independents went after the Presbyterian gentry, who were seeking a settlement with the crown without satisfying the demands of the laboring people that in large part made up the New Model Army.

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xvi]

The local studies question the strength of anti-Catholicism by showing that Catholics were included in the various coalitions that were formed during the era. The Presbyterian gentry formed a coalition with Catholic Royalists and the French government. This included starting in 1646 a plot with the Catholic queen, Henrietta Maria against the Independents.[31] Similarly, the levelers in 1649 opposed Cromwell's invasion of Ireland. They stated that the Irish Catholics were not their enemy, but the London merchants and English gentry who wished to weaken the power of the laboring people by sending off to Ireland their most effective protector, the army.[32] The leveler William Walwyn suggested that the English should look to "honest papists . . . to learn civility, humanity, simplicity of heart; yea, charity and Christianity."[33]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xvii]

The Catholic inclusion in various coalitions was matched, as local historian Robin Clifton points out, by the tendency of the pamphleteers to abandon anti-Catholicism as a stock propaganda theme early in the war. This was because the majority of English readers knew better and could not be manipulated by it. As Clifton comments, "Why should a writer in such evident need pass over a stock propaganda theme [as anti-Catholicism] unless he knew its value to be debased?"[34] Notable was the inability of the Presbyterian capitalists in Parliament to enact legislation that would have solemnized Guy Fawkes Day.[35]

The study of the failure to enforce penal legislation is another way local historians have undermined the siege history.[36] Caroline Hibbard remarks that "the existence of harsh legislation was often mistaken for evidence that it was enforced."[37] She notes that the penal laws were enacted at times of national emergency, such as the 1588 attack of the Spanish Armada. In these periods England was at risk from Catholic powers. The English Catholics were just as "anti-Catholic" in opposing the efforts of Spain to rule England through the pope as were the Protestants. The lax enforcement of the legislation was in part a recognition of this.[38]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xviii]

Local historians maintain that had the penal legislation which started in 1559 been enforced, there would have been no recusants by the Civil War.[39] A 1581 act imposed a fine of £20 per month on recusants to be paid directly to the exchequer.[40] Most recusants did not make half that amount in a year. Had it been enforced, they would all have died in debtor's prison. Another penal law imposed a 12d weekly fine. It too was not enforced because it would have forced most recusants into pauperdom. The parish enforcers of the 12d fine would then have had to support the recusant paupers from parish funds. Hugh Aveling remarks, "The exaction of the 12d fine was pretty universally disregarded by parochial officers, presumably because exaction meant distraint on the household goods of the poor, pauperdom, and a charge on the parish."[41] Local historians also find that in connection with the penal laws as much as 80 percent of the Catholics were church Catholics. By partial conformity to the Anglican church they were not made subject to the penal laws.

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xix]

Capitalist historiography in emphasizing religion rather than class also focuses on Catholic anti-Protestantism. But the country studies find this was not a significant factor among Catholics. This is not to deny that anti-Protestantism was a doctrine of Roman clericalism and that there was an extensive controversial literature between the Catholic and Protestant clergy.[42] But this literature did not arise from the ranks of the laboring Catholics or of the Catholic clergy who were engaged in the pastoral and congregational ministry.[43]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xx]

Not a little of Rome's "anti-Protestantism" was directed at Catholics, their clergy and their liberation theology, rather than at Protestants. For example, Thomas Sanchez, S.J. and Robert Persons, S.J. taught that partial conformers and the clergy who served them were apostates, schismatics, and excommunicate.[44] Contemporary academics continue Rome’s prejudices. John Krugler, in commenting on the 1996 edition of this present study, writes:

Recent studies reveal that Catholic response to the penal legislation or the destruction of the Catholic hierarchy in England was not uniform. Family-by-family and county-by-county investigations provide an appreciation of what it meant to be a Catholic at this time and demonstrate the complexity of the responses. These studies put Calvert’s religious life in perspective. Determining the number of Catholics in England is a function of definition. . . For example, Edward Terrar’s expansive definition leads him to overstate the number of English Catholics who survived.[45]

If one accepted Rome’s prejudices, which is Krugler’s bent, there were no Catholics in England once the hierarchy was chased out. Catholics in his view were not the working people, but the hierarchy that lived off them.

The class nature of Rome’s anti-Protestantism can be seen in the history of its relation to the English monarchy. In 1570 Pope Pius V issued his bull Regnans in Excelsis, which excommunicated the queen as heretical and gave license for her overthrow. However, eighty years later when Parliament actually achieved the overthrow of the still-Protestant monarchy, the pope censured the Maryland Jesuit missionary, Andrew White, S.J. and the Catholics in England who sided with the overthrow.[46] For the Roman hierarchy, Protestant monarchy was preferable to popular rule.[47]

[PREFACE, 2011 ed., p. xxi]

Maryland’s farmers in living out the evangelical counsels, rejected the reduction of Catholic theology to the beliefs of the gentry and Roman establishment. The Catholics were laboring people with beliefs that served their political, economic, and religious needs. They could not be easily manipulated. Where Catholicism did best in England and America, it was not because of clerical doctrines but because the Catholic clergy served the pastoral needs of those who were neglected by the Protestant clergy. This is not to say that Catholics had any lack of doctrines. But their doctrines centered on the value of labor. The Catholics were Catholics because of their clergy who served them in their Basic Christian Communities. But much of the substance of their religion, which encompassed their way of life and not merely their occasional cultic activity, came from themselves, not from the clergy. Many of the clergy, however, shared in their beliefs.

(Figure omitted)[48]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 1]

CHAPTER 1

The European Working-Class Background

The first generation of Maryland Catholics grew up in what liberation theology calls Basic Christian Communities (BCCs). These were in Europe. The migrants learned their liberation theology there. This study begins by looking at this European background and the doctrines they learned there. The Maryland Catholics came from England, with some also from Germany, the Low Countries, Portugal, Spain, Brazil, Virginia, Ireland, Africa, the West Indies and New England. In the 17th century, there were about 500,000 Catholics in England, out of a total population of 5 million. The English Catholics were concentrated in the north and west, such as in Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Northern High Peake district, and Monmouthshire on the South Wales border, and in urban centers, such as London, Bristol, Norwich, Newcastle and York.[49]

In the rural areas the Catholics were farmers and laborers. Some working-class congregations or BCCs owned their own chapel or held services in barns and farmyards.[50] Some congregations numbered up to 200 people. In and about Lancashire there were Catholic chapels, some of which are still in use, at Brindle, Chorley, Claughton, Gillmoss, Little Crosby, Liverpool Lytham, Manchester, Pleasington, Preston, Wigan, and Woolton.[51] Some villages were entirely Catholic in population.[52] Catholics in some Yorkshire districts forced their landlords, such as the Constable, Gascoigne, and Fairfaxe families, who had their own house chaplains, to pay for the services of a second priest to serve themselves.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 2]

Hugh Aveling has studied the BCC congregational structure of the Catholic community in York, which was similar to that in Maryland. In the Langbaurgh district of York there were eight Catholic congregations in 1642, with a total membership of about 500. In the North Riding district of York there were 28 self-supporting congregations served by both secular and ordered clergy. In some villages the school master or catechist were Catholics, either licensed or as in the case of Thomas Wood at Leake and Emmanuel Dawson at Lanmouth, unlicensed. They taught the rudiments of religion as well as English and Latin. Women who had been educated in the seventeen English language continental convents also served as school teachers and catechists in these villages. In 1637 Mary Ward established a community of women at Newby, Ripon, which made its living as teachers. In 1639 three English Franciscan nuns established a convent in York to teach school.[53]

Liberation Theology's Celebration of Labor. The basis of the European workers' life and of their liberation theology was labor. They spoke of labor as God's work, a religious activity.[54] As their scripture put it, "The handiwork of their craft is their prayer" (Ecclesiasticus 38:34). Labor took up most of their day. It allowed them to have a family and gave them dignity and pride. It was the source of their political and economic power and of their cultural and social life. Their politics, economics and religion talked of their labor as the means of establishing God's reign on earth.

Among the places in which labor was discussed was their media. For example, the English Catholic secular priest, Thomas White published a catechism in 1637, which was republished several times during the Civil War period. White pictured God as a laborer, the maker of the universe.[55] Along with God as a laborer, the Catholic pamphleteers of the Civil War period pictured Jesus and his followers as working people. "Each in scripture has a trade and exercises it daily," Paul the tentmaker, Peter the fisherman, Joseph the carpenter.[56] Catholic masons had God as the master mason complete with a pair of scales. Kings, bishops, and popes claimed their positions were based on God's charism. Catholic laboring people countered by claiming their own skills were God's charism:

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 3]

The virtuous industrious are to be cherished, yea, God himself (the only best pattern of governors) has made it known, that mechanical qualities are his special gifts and his infused, as it were charismata.[57]

Along the same lines, Edward Bolton, a Catholic worker in London wrote a treatise in 1629 called Cities Advocate. In it he attacked capital for glorifying itself. Instead, he held up for emulation Martin Calthorpe, who started out as an apprentice, became mayor of London, and to whose skills even Queen Elizabeth had paid homage:

Queen Elizabeth acknowledged Martin Calthorpe, the Lord Mayor of London, who started as apprentice. I pray to resemble the worthies of this city, out of whatever obscure parentage, than being descended of great nobles, to fall by vice far beneath the reckoning of the poorest prentiser.[58]

One finds in the pamphlets of working-class Catholics a Bible that rejected capitalism and that was filled with working people and their role in establishing a just society. Scripture that was quoted included that about Noah, the ark builder, and Genesis 4:20, which honored Jabel (Iabel), the father of agricultural husbandry: "Moses put into eternal monuments that Jabel was pater pastorum, the most ancient of increase."[59] At one point Bolton compiled a list of various "secondary" trades given praise in the Bible, such as iron workers, hammer-smiths, engravers, furniture makers and metal founders. He remarked that if these non-essentials were delighted in by God, how much more were the essential trades to be honored:

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 3]

If then such honor be done by God not only to those which are necessary hand-crafts, but to those also which are but the handmaid of magnificence and outward splendor, as engravers, metal founders and the like, he shall be very hardy who shall embrace honest industry with disgraceful censures, and too unjust who shall not cherish, or encourage it with praise and worship.[60]

Along with their Bible and catechisms, 17th-century liberation theology's celebration of labor included both Roman figures, and working-class patron saints, clergy, street pageants, pilgrimages, prayers and feast days.[61] In rural areas the symbolic rituals of the BCCs were related to the harvest year. These rituals glorified labor and productivity.[62] Lady Day (March 25) marked the initiation of sowing and was the first day of the year in the old calendar. Michaelmas (September 29) was the beginning of reaping. Martinmas (November 11) was the original harvest and thanksgiving day celebrating filled barns and stocked larders. Farming people went to mass on Martinmass and observed the rest of the day with games, dances, parades, and a festive dinner, the main feature of which was the traditional roasted goose (Martin's goose).[63] The symbolic rituals included a cycle of eight feast-days, distributed throughout the year at intervals of about six weeks: Christmas, the first Sunday of lent, Easter, Whitsun, St. Peter and Paul (June 29), the Assumption (August 15), Michaelmas (September 29), and All Saints (November 1).[64]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 4]

Working-class religion, unlike the religion of the landlords, was characterized by work-related songs, ballads, and jigs, which were sung while laboring. These songs concerned among other things, cultivated crops set in straight rows, well-kept homesteads, and satisfaction with the completion of the day's labor.[65] Also in the category of celebrating workers and productivity were the Whitsun Ales, may-poles, morris dancing, village pipers, plays and drama, and pilgrimages.[66] The May festival commemorated full spring and nature's triumph, when trees stood in their early foliage and flowers blossomed in abundance. Cottages were adorned with flowers and the branches of pale-green tender leaves. A "May Queen" was chosen by vote of the young men, who led a procession to the place of the spring festival, where she presided over the celebration. She was crowned with a wreath of flowers and held a wooden scepter adorned with flowers in her hand.[67] These worker customs were strong in Catholic areas, such as Lancashire and North Riding.[68]

Liberation theology turned capital's hatred of labor on its head. In capital's view, the more productive a person's trade, the lower was the person's spiritual worth. At the bottom in the landlord theology of Aquinas's hierarchy were the most productive, the agricultural laborers (laborantium in agris), whom he called vile people (vilis populus).[69] Above them were artisans and merchants. Neither of these were honorable people (populus honorabilis). A pamphleteer for the magnates in following the logic of the early capitalist writers divided creation into three types of existence: vegetable, animal, and intellectual. The existence of the working class was vegetable and animal.[70] It was common for workers whose children attended Jesuit institutions to complain about the contempt for labor which was taught their children.[71]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 6]

Working-Class Clergy. The European rank and file and their BCCs had their own clergy and nuns. Although the wealthy monopolized clerical services, there were clergy who came from the working class, especially among the secular clergy, who identified with labor.[72] Such clergy refused to act as the landlords' live-in chaplains and tutors.[73] More than half the 750 Catholic clergy worked for the small percentage of the Catholic population that had property.[74] Such work brought them £20 to £25 per year, twice what laboring Catholics who supported families made.[75] Leander Jones noted in 1634 that being a priest was a good way to gain a comfortable living.[76]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 7]

What is surprising is that labor was able to obtain the number of clergy that it did, despite the landlords' money. Typical of the clergy who took the side of the working class in establishing God's reign was Ralph Corby, S.J. (1598-1644). A report discussed the esteem in which he was held, "He was so beloved of the poor people and so reverenced and esteemed for his pious labors and functions that he was commonly called by them apostle of the country."[77] Henry Foley, S.J. writes:

He pursued a moderate and poor style of living with the laboring class of men, and always visited the neighboring places on foot. In the neighborhood where he lived, were many Catholics of narrow means and obscure station. There he always thought it his duty to administer the sacraments and to visit among their villages and in their houses. He used to go without a cloak, in a very humble dress, so that he might have been taken for a servant, a farm-bailiff or letter-carrier. His reception too and manner of living was such as is usually to be met with among the laboring classes. He did not visit by appointment, but casually. And he was as much delighted with chance fare as with the greatest luxuries.[78]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 7]

Another of the BCC priests was Nicholas Postgate who served in the Cleveland section of Yorkshire. He reported, "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."[79] The Benedictine Ambrose Barlow (d. 1641) served 23 years at Leigh in Lancashire. From a neighborhood family, he spent one week in circuit for every three he spent at home. On circuit he lived with the country farmers, wore country dress, walked, not rode, and ate the meatless diet of whitemeats such as cheese and eggs and the garden produce of the working class.[80] The circuits of some clergy, such as that of the Jesuit, Thomas Gascoigne, extended for 200 miles and took a month to complete.[81] At his home base, Gascoigne lived in a cottage and chopped his own wood for fire.

For the Civil War farmers such clergy embodied the essence of Catholic social doctrine, the evangelical counsels of perfection (poverty, chastity and obedience). Biblical scholar Francis Moloney has commented in more recent times, these virtues are incumbent upon all and have a class dimension.[82] Most importantly, evangelical chastity in its celibate form, as St. Paul in 1 Co. 7:7–8, 32–35 observed, is the highest vocation, freeing the person for undivided work in God’s reign, which in a class system means being a revolutionary.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 9]

Labor-Value. The crux of liberation theology's conflict with capital was over the fruits of labor. Worker religion maintained that laboring people were the source of value and of a just society. The classical political economists expressed this idea in the "labor theory of value."[83] That is, labor, not capital, produced value and should receive the benefits from it. St. Paul (2 Th. 3:10) put it negatively: those who do not work, which to 17th-century workers meant capitalists, should not eat. The Catholics were not concerned about formulating a theory of economic activity, but as Ronald Meek points out, throughout the period the "habit of thinking of `value' in terms of producers' cost remained firmly rooted in the consciousness of the direct producers themselves."[84]

The Catholic-educated 17th-century English revolutionary, William Petty (1623-1687), summed up the labor theory of value, "Labor is the father and active principle of wealth."[85] He viewed landlords as parasitical and tenants as producers. He worked for the establishment of a tax system that would transfer wealth "from the landlord and lazy, to the crafts and industrious."[86] Likewise, Richard Weston, a Catholic farmer in Surrey, who wrote a scientific treatise in 1650 on how to increase crop productivity in sandy soil by planting flax, turnips, and clover, summed up the universal agrarian belief that God had made labor, not capital, the root of all riches.[87]

In defending labor-value, one 17th-century liberation theologian commented, "The demeaning of work has filled our England with more vices and sacrificed more souls to sinful life, than perhaps anyone other uncivil opinion whatsoever. They [capitalist] hold it better to rob by land or sea than to labor."[88] The same writer contended that the "paragon gentry" in comparing themselves with laboring people, much overrated themselves:

Aristotle held that only the Greeks were free and all the barbarians, that is, non-Greeks, were bad. Some among us seem Aristotelians in this point, who as he gloriously over-valued his countrymen, so these overvalue the paragon-gentry, and repute none more worthy of honor but themselves.[89]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 10]

The English Catholic Thomas Hawkins (d. 1639) in taking exception to the religious practices promoted by the capitalists, similarly attacked their contempt for labor:

One may wear a scapular, say everyday some beads or some famous prayer without restoring things ill got. These are the devotions that people love. From thence come the exterior devotion to the blessed sacrament. Since the work of hands has ceased, they have extremely praised mental prayer.[90]

Labor value was both the basis of the conflict with capital and the source of the class unity among workers that liberation theology celebrated. Class unity included gender equality; working women like working men carried their own weight and the dignity that went along with it. This contrasted with capitalist religion which demeaned not only working class men and women, but capitalist women as well. Capital set the goal for its women as marrying "well," being obedient to the domestic role, and bearing a male heir. Political, economic, and other rights were minimized.[91] Among the arguments which capitalist literature offered for women's subordination was the biblical passage about eating the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden and the special curse upon Eve for inducing her husband to sin.[92] A popular landlord devotion, the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola, in its guidelines for discernment compared the devil to a woman.[93]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 11]

Antinomianism. In England 70% of the wealth was, from the levelers' perspective, stolen by the 1% of the population that did no labor.[94] It was a class-divided society. The corollary to liberation theology's celebration of labor was revolution against the class system and the theft of labor-value. In 17th-century terms, the theological class conflict waged by labor was called antinomianism. Meaning literally "those against the law," antinomians challenged the capitalist order in church and state.[95] As Thomas Collier wrote in 1646, "believers are a law unto themselves."[96] The leveler Gerrard Winstanley (1609-1652) used antinomianism to agitate for rent-free land.[97] The Presbyterian-dominated Parliament in 1646 called treasonous the teaching of antinomianism and enacted capital punishment against it.[98] The Presbyterian capitalists did not fear antinomianism because of otherworldly considerations, but because, as occurred in Pride's Purge in 1648, the antinomians obtained political power at the expense of the Presbyterians. During the Roman Empire the profession of Christianity had similarly been declared crimen maiestatis or high treason against the security of the state. This was because early Christian communism threatened the security of capitalist landlords.[99]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 12]

While Winstanley and Collier were Protestants, what is of interest is that working-class Catholicism was also antinomian. The Catholics, like the Protestants, did not use the term "antinomianism" to describe their beliefs. The term was used to insult political revolutionaries during the war by their enemies.[100] The Maryland Catholics in 1649, during the period they were revolting against both Crown and Parliament, outlawed the use of the term in their Act Concerning Religion.[101] The Catholics did not call their beliefs antinomian, but those who have studied the Catholics of the period have used the term about them.[102]

Catholic antinomians included pamphleteers and clergy, such as Thomas White, Augustine Baker (d. 1641), the English Benedictine nun Gertrude More (d. 1633), William Rushworth (d. 1636), John Austin (1613-1669) and Henry Holden. Among the antinomian themes developed by these writers were universal grace, an emphasis on the Holy Spirit, eschatology, and the necessity to look to the "inner light," the "inward voice," "the illumination of God's Holy Spirit," and "the liberty of the Spirit," as opposed to the dictates of the established order.[103] Historian James Gaffney labeled the program of the English Benedictine priest Augustine Baker (d. 1641) "a virtual antinomianism predicated on the belief that nothing is finally normative for human behavior but the personal experience of what is taken to be a divine inspiration."[104]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 13]

Simon Strong in his study of the Peruvian communism describes similar Catholic antinomianism in more recent times. In the early Andean religious cosmology, there were five ages. By 1700 under Catholic influence this had been reduced to three. These were the age of the Father and Son, which were the pre-Hispanic and post-conquest eras, and the age of the Holy Ghost, which would be inaugurated with the end of the world and last judgment (pachacutec).[105] The Indians who joined the Communist Party of Peru maintained the revolution they were leading was the end of the world, the last judgment and the beginning of the age of the Holy Ghost, in which justice would finally be established. The apocalyptic belief in the imminent end of the world and second coming of Jesus is a powerful force. The Peruvian revolutionary war was brutal. The government killed off the populations of whole villages, using U.S.-supplied napalm and saturation bombing on entire regions.[106] It took strong beliefs such as that about the second coming to fight back and sometimes die.

The 17th-century Catholic antinomians taught that God wanted no class system, but rather its leveling.[107] The only obedience owed was to their class interests. Against the claim that the capitalist-worker relation was God-ordained, unchangeable, and not subject to contractual rights by laboring people, Thomas White responded, "None think a husbandman, who is hired to till or fence a piece of ground, obeys the hirer more than he that sells a piece of cloth obeys the buyer, because he takes his money; but they are said to contract and perform their part of the bargain."[108]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 14]

Antinomian clergy advised working people to revolt against wealth, as one Catholic priest put it, "seeing their labors disposed on to people, of whom they have opinion that they are idle, vicious and unworthy, therefore desire freedom from such a yoke and become masters of their own goods and labors."[109] While capital wanted labor to be like oxen that could be butchered for profit, the antinomians looked to turn the tables:

What are people better than a herd of sheep or oxen, if they be owned, like them, by masters? What difference is there between their masters selling them to the butcher, and obliging them to venture their lives and livelihoods for his private interest?[110]

Antinomian doctrine maintained it was not obedience but disobedience to the class system that was a virtue:

It is a fallacious principle, though maintained by many, that obedience is one of the most eminent virtues and that it is the greatest sacrifice we can offer to God, to renounce our own wills, because our will is the chiefest good we have. . . To renounce any natural faculty or the legitimate and fitting use of it, under pretense of pleasing God, is a folly, not a virtue.[111]

As in Galatians 2 and Romans 6:1, antinomian justification was by faith, not by works, laws or kings. This doctrine was as much against state and landlord legalism as against church legalism. In place of the landlord preference for Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, free or human will, good works and legalism, that were taught in the Jesuit schools, liberation theology was about justification of the working people based on God’s providence, predestination and grace.[112] In the cosmological order of things, working people would prevail because of this preferential option.[113]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 15]

The rank and file put into practice their antinomian doctrine with frequency. During the first-half of the 17th century, there were rebellions and revolutions involving laboring people in behalf of establishing God's reign on earth and against economic monopoly in every Catholic nation and city-state of Europe: France, Florence, the Kingdom of Naples, Spain, the Low Countries, and Germany.[114] In England Catholic laboring people took a leading role at the local and national level in the 20-year Civil War that overthrew the government, leveled capital and brought agrarian reforms such as the repudiation of lease agreements, the refusal to pay rent, the knocking down of landlord fences and the cultivating of liberated land. The employers' world was so turned up-side-down that they complained of being the slaves of their employees. An illustration of a Catholic worker who turned the tables on his boss is given in the following account:

There were obvious dangers in sending away discontented servants at a time of national tension. One Lancashire servant "was required to go, as did his master and mistress, to hear a Jesuit preach. He did not go." He was presumably dismissed as a consequence. Naturally enough he turned informer. "As these times go," one lord was told by his son in similar circumstances, "all servants are masters, and we their slaves."[115]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 16]

Prominent among the Catholic employers who were confronted by their employees was Inigo Jones (d. 1652). As a youth, he had started out as an apprentice joiner and ended up a London architect and surveyor in the employment of the Crown and nobility. Among his achievements was an addition to London's St. Paul's Cathedral in the 1620s. He was a Royalist and at the beginning of the war, to avoid taxes and confiscation, he had his four servants bury his money in a secret place near his home in Scotland Yard. As the war continued, however, his servants showed sympathy for Parliament. Jones, in his 70s, correctly feared that they would turn him and his money into Parliament. He managed to dig up and rebury his money in Lambeth Marsh before being arrested. He saved his money but spent part of the war in prison.[116]

Agrarian Antinomianism. If an antinomian conflict with capital came out of the labor theory of value, agrarian reform was liberation theology's solution for establishing the golden rule. Catholic agrarianism traced its roots back to and celebrated the classical period of slave insurrections and overthrows of landlord empires.[117] Solon (638-559 B.C.) in 594 B.C. at the lead of the Athenian farmers who were being sold into slavery for debt, overthrew the landlords and outlawed borrowing on the security of the person of the debtor. He also canceled all debts, including mortgages on land.[118] Similarly, during the period of the Peloponesian War in the 5th and 4th century B.C., the helots (slaves) took the opportunity to establish an agrarian reform in Sparta as a result of fleeing by the thousands and conducting armed struggle against the wealthy.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 17]

The period of the Roman Republic between 510 and 27 B.C. was especially popular with 17-century agrarian reformers. The Roman plebeians, that is, the working class, had battled state laws which attempted to give the wealthy unlimited rights. The landlords of the period justified their monopoly as being part of the "natural law."[119] The working class countered with their own "natural law," and complained that they were "nominally lords of the earth, while not possessing one lump of earth."[120] For hundreds of years they fought for and achieved the redistribution of the land to the producers. Their agrarian reforms (lex agraria) were greatest during the period of Spurius Cassius in 486 B.C. and the tribuneship of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C.[121] Machiavelli, a landlord, called the lex agraria the first cause of the destruction of the Roman Republic.[122] The English working people themselves had a long history of struggle for agrarian reform in Roman-occupied eastern England. The aboriginal Britons (Gaelics) finally allied themselves with the Saxons in liberating England.[123] John Davies remarked about the struggle:

It is possible that the lower classes did not regret the passing of the Empire; its last years in Gaul were accompanied by revolts of serfs and peasants. To them, the English in Kent or Sussex may have appeared less oppressive than the civitates, which were led by men concerned to perpetuate the Roman system.[124]

In their 17th-century battle for agrarian reform, the Catholic antinomians rejected the established authorities. One such authority was Pseudo-Dionysius, an early Christian writer, who was said by 17th-century monopolists to have been a personal friend of Jesus and representative of his teaching on the subject. Pseudo-Dionysius rebuked as contrary to the divine order Demophilus' advocacy of agrarian reform:

It is not for Demophilus to correct these things. If theology exhorts us to pursue just things justly, and if the pursuit of justice is to will the distribution of what is fitting to each, it must be pursued justly by all, not contrary to the merit or rank of each; for justice is distributed even to angels according to merit, but not by us.[125]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 18]

It was not the traditions of Rome's agrarian reformers and abolitionists or the communism in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:42-47; 5:32) that one learned about in the landlord schools, but rather Aristotle, Livy, and Cicero, who fought reform.[126] The Roman and canon law, as well as Gregory the Great were used by capital as authorities for the view that landlord property rights were based in natural law and thus part of God's law and not susceptible to agrarian reform measures.[127]

During the Civil War period, the Catholics antinomians through grass-roots struggle established a golden rule at the local level by agrarian reform against both Catholic and Protestant, royalist and parliamentary landlords. Illustrative was the manor of Sowerby Thirsk in Yorkshire. Sowerby Thirsk had enough Catholics that it had its own Catholic school.[128] The manor was owned by the Catholic Thomas Meynell, a "radical encloser" who had been censured by his Catholic tenants and the quarter sessions court as a depopulator. His Catholic tenants included the families of Lawrence Brown and Christopher Hawe, who stopped paying rent all together during the Civil War period. His other tenants turned over their rent to the county committee instead of to Meynell. Meynell disliked this. His income was about £500 per year and was normally understated as £40 per year for tax purposes. Meynell was unable to dodge his taxes when his tenants handed over their rent directly to the county committee. In 1647 he called his tenants "vulgar plebeians" because they "presumed to assess the true landlord. . . as thought he had been one of their coridons. . . The lord's rent at Sowerby was never assessed or questioned until these late new times. The bushhopper tenants were never so unkind or foolish to access their lords' rent."[129] Meynell appealed to the county committee, but it took the side of the tenants.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 19]

What the "bushhopper" tenants at the Sowerby Thirsk manor did in abolishing the capitalist squeeze on the value which they produced was normative during the Civil War both in England and Maryland. Manors were governed by assemblies of tenants, which as David Allen points out, required wide participation in government.[130] Manors dominated in areas of open field production, such as the north and west of England, where Catholics had their greatest strength. Allen takes note that the Massachusetts towns, including Cambridge, Ipswich, and Watertown were settled by those from the eastern part of England, where government was not as "democratic - in the sense of offering wide participation."[131] As will be seen, the liberation theology of the Maryland Catholics was more revolutionary in establishing God's reign than their Massachusetts counterparts. The Catholics brought their revolutionary religion with them. It had no toleration for capitalism.

Cecil Calvert Leveled. Among the English capitalists against whom antinomian reform was achieved by their Catholic tenants at the grass roots was Cecil Calvert, the Maryland proprietor. He was what the Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger called a "parasite of the kingdom."[132] He never visited Maryland but was, at least from the view of the class system, its chief landlord. Maryland's classless society denied his authority. Calvert got what claim he had to Maryland from his father, George Calvert (d. 1632), a place-seeking politician for the Stuart monarchy.[133] The Stuarts in the 17th century, like their present-day capitalist counterparts on the Potomac, turned licensed corporations and patents from being effective governmental regulatory devices into mere money-raising expedients. The Stuarts ruled for their own narrow benefit and spent money without the consent of Parliament. George Calvert's career consisted of turning public corporations into royal fund-raising schemes.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 20]

George Calvert's early career and role in gaining the Maryland patent resembled that of his better-known friend, Thomas Wentworth. Both Wentworth and Calvert came from non-noble families. They had ambitions of being nobles but had no significant revenue-producing estates. The Calverts lived on a confiscated monastic estate that resulted from the one type of agrarian reform with which they had sympathy.[134] Therefore they advanced themselves, as John Eliot put it in 1628, by going into the service of the Crown against the interests of the nation and of their own class.[135] In return for promoting crown monopolies and similar activities, they eventually obtained peerages and offices. As lord lieutenant of Ireland in the 1630s Wentworth confiscated Irish land and had a concession on the tobacco trade that earned him £23,000 annually.[136] Part of his service, like that of George Calvert, included helping the Crown plot the overthrow of Parliament.[137] About this, Thomas Macaulay remarked that Wentworth was one "to whom a peerage was a sacrament of infamy, a baptism into the communion of corruption, which destroys nations."[138]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 21]

During the 1620s George Calvert's personal profiting from the public trust came to £2,000 annually. He also gained landholdings of 2,300 acres in County Longford, Ireland, 2,700 acres in County Wexford, Ireland, and a title in the Irish peerage (Lord Baltimore).[139] Calvert lost his office at court in the late 1620s because he sided with the group that wanted to betray the country to the Hapsburg empire through a Spanish marriage for Charles I. Those in the Spanish party had desired that Charles I make such a Spanish marriage. Most in the party received regular pensions or bribes from the Spanish government.[140] George Goring (d. 1663), Earl of Norwich and Richard Boyle, earl of Cork, ended up negotiating the marriage of Prince Charles to Henrietta Maria of France. Goring owned the farm of the tobacco custom for England, which meant all colonial tobacco sold in England and Ireland passed through his hands.

George Goring was resentful of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford and of James Butler, Earl of Ormonde (d. 1688), who were allies of George and Cecil Calvert. Ormonde was the Calverts' proxy in the Irish Parliament in 1634. Wentworth in the 1630s managed to obtain the tobacco custom farm in Ireland, which eliminated Goring's income from that source. More tobacco was sold in Ireland than in England.[141] Because of Wentworth's profiteering in the 1630s in Ireland and because he had built up a powerful papist army in Ireland that scared many in England, Parliament impeached and executed him for treason in 1641. Beginning in October of that same year, the Irish landlords, following the example of the Scottish Presbyterian rebellion in 1637, rose up against the English imperialists, including against Cecil Calvert.[142]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 22]

When George Calvert died in April 1632, he had an estate worth about £10,000. But for his early death, he would have been granted the Maryland patent.[143] Cecil Calvert was the god-son and name-sake of the original promoter of Stuart capitalism, Robert Cecil.[144] Cecil had been secretary of state from 1596 to 1608 and had helped in securing the Stuart succession. Cecil Calvert used the same court connections, including Thomas Wentworth, that his father had cultivated.[145] Wentworth was the principal advisor to Charles I between 1639 and 1641.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 23]

Cecil Calvert's main residence was not in Ireland but near his Arundell in-laws in southwest Wiltshire where they had large estates.[146] Both Arundell and Calvert were leveled by their antinomian Irish and Wiltshire tenants during the war. Derek Hirst finds that assaults on the landlord's houses were a pretext for forays against the manorial records.[147] Tenants took the war as an opportunity to settle economic grievances around the issue of labor value. The leveling in May 1643 of Wardour castle, which was the Arundell's residence, was precipitated by the siege there of Edward Hungerford, Edmund Ludlow, and their parliamentary troops. Arundell's Catholic tenants took back what the class system had squeezed out of their labor. From the castle and its surrounding lands they confiscated £100,000 worth of cattle, farm animals, tools, furniture, cartloads of fish from ponds that were drained dry, and oak and elms worth £5 per tree that were felled and sold at 4d per tree.[148] Thousands of such landlord houses, woods, and parks were plundered and at least 200 houses "of major importance" were reduced to ruins.[149] This looting was directed at both royalist and parliamentary, Catholic and Protestant landlords, and the beneficiaries included the Catholic tenantry and laborers.

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 24]

Likewise, Cecil Calvert's tenants turned the Civil War into a grass-roots rebellion against him. After he was sequestered in November 1645 by the parliamentary Wiltshire County committee, his tenants questioned and refused his right to hold a manor court, impose the homager's oath, or receive the economic benefits that went along with such rights.[150] In addition to their refusal to pay rent or their payment of less than was customary, tenants such as those on Calvert's land, ploughed up their landlords' pastures, put in improper crops, and neglected normal manuring and repairs. Christopher Clay comments, "Tenants threw up their farms, pressed for reductions in rent, ignored husbandry covenants, and encroached on their landlord's rights in other ways."[151] J. P. Cooper documents the "irrecoverable rent arrears piling up."[152] David Underdown quotes as not unusual the complaint by a landlord at seeing the "massive arrears" in rents being run up:

Now men are are lawless, trees and hedges are carried away without controlment; tenants use their landlord how they list for their rents, taking this to be a time of liberty.[153]

Most landlords were forced to sell land because of lack of rental income in order to pay their debts and taxes.[154] Many were bankrupted and in counties such as Lancashire that had many Catholics, about half the capitalist families disappeared permanently.[155]

Enclosures Leveled. An aspect of the monopoly system which especially had obstructed the establishment of labor's golden rule was the enclosing or fencing of cultivated land and turning it into pasture to raise sheep. Enclosures and depopulation were long-standing grievances of copyholders and tenants-at-will in areas with heavy Catholic concentrations, such as the western part of England. Merchant-dominated courts and parliamentary legislation allowed land to be confiscated by landlords and turned into pasture. In these areas there was more profit for the landlord in wool production than in the income that could be gained by a tenant's production of grain crops.[156] The complaint against enclosures was part of the Grand Remonstrance in 1641.[157] According to R. C. Richardson, "the central agrarian issue in the English Revolution was whether the landlords or the small farmers should control and develop the wastes."[158]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 25]

During the 1620s and 1630s more profits for Catholic capitalists like John Wintour and Basil Brooke because of enclosures meant the loss of livelihood for their Catholic tenants. The Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger in his antinomian plays wrote against those such as Wintour and Brooke who "intrude on their poor neighbor's right" and "enclose what was common land, to their use."[159] During the Civil War, it was the tenants who profited and Wintour and Brooke who were evicted.[160] Wintour, several of whose sons migrated to Maryland for short periods, held a monopoly on royal leases in Gloucestershire's Forest of Dean.[161] These leases were in Lydney and 28 other parishes as well as in several dozen manors. "Forest" did not mean a wooded area, but an area under the Crown's ownership and under forest law, rather than common law. Wintour's leases involved some 18,000 acres of arable land, timber, iron mills, and coal mines, much of which had been enclosed in the years prior to the war. The revenues from these leases was so great that Wintour had acted as a financier for the Crown during the 1630s when the king had ruled without Parliament.[162]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 26]

Wintour's displaced Catholic tenants used the war as an opportunity to stage a widespread, grass-roots agrarian reform. They tore down some 17 miles of enclosures standing 4½ feet high worth £1,000. They burned structures used for coal mining.[163] At one point 3,000 people assembled including 8 score Welshmen and staged a mock Catholic funeral for Wintour. Armed with guns and pikes they carried his effigy accompanied by two drums, two colors, and a fife. Among the leaders were a cobbler, a glover, and a husbandman.[164] Since 800 A.D. the Catholic people of Dean had held land in common for their hogs and cattle to graze upon. They fought to preserve their rights. What Wintour's tenants achieved in establishing their golden rule was a common occurrence in areas of forests and fens during the period, as Buchanan Sharp documents:

As soon as the members of England's elite found themselves preoccupied with the political crisis that led to Civil War, the inhabitants of forests and fens took advantage of the times to riot once again and destroy the works of enclosers and drainers. In the years between 1642 and 1649 riots erupted in all those western forests which had been the scenes of the riots between 1626 and 1632.[165]

The liberation theology of non-agriculturalists such as mineworkers, ironmakers, textile weavers, carpenters and sailors, no less than that of the agrarians focused on obtaining full value for labor. One of the Catholics' weapons in struggling for honest pay and labor conditions was holy days. For example, Yorkshire coalminers had 52 yearly saints or feast-days, which they took off as holidays.[166] This was in addition to the 52 Sundays which they took off. The strength of Catholicism in the northern coal-mining communities was attributed by historian John Bossy to the traditional working-class weapons like the observance of saints' days.[167] Catholic workers in each trade had feast-days on which they celebrated their craft skills at church or in the common hall of their companies and guilds.[168] At the same time the capitalists were seeking to reduce the number of feast-days and to promote their program of keeping wages at a minimum and hours of labor at the maximum of physical subsistence.[169]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 27]

Revolution Against Capitalist Theology: Racism. Liberation theology's defense of labor's golden rule was spiritual as well as material. For each doctrine of capitalist theology justifying the theft of labor, the workers had an antinomian doctrine advocating revolution. For example, central to capitalist spirituality were doctrines based on race, language, national origins, religion and color, which then as now, were used to divide the working class and conquer it. In the 17th century, the gentry maintained that God had constituted their blood a separate, non-laboring race, distinct from and better than the working class.[170] The blood which flowed in capital's veins was said to be the source of their supposed beauty, impetuosity, leadership, and martial qualities. One had to have noble blood in order to ride and control a horse well. The following illustrates the Catholic gentry’s racial propaganda:

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 28]

Great men have many more talents from God, for the traffic of virtues than others have. The bodies of nobles and gentlemen are ordinarily better composed, and as it were more delicately molded by the artful hands of nature. They have their senses more subtle, their spirits more agile, their members better proportioned, their garb more gentle and grace more accomplished, and all these prepare a safe shop for the soul to exercise her functions with greater liberty.[171]

The history of these beliefs about the racial superiority of the capitalist went back at least to the slave system of classical antiquity in which people of different race, language, national origin and religion were attacked.[172] The Greek and Roman slavocracy taught that certain people were by nature destined to be slaves. As set forth in Aristotle and Cicero these people, along with women, were justifiably subordinated because by nature the landlord class was superior in reasoning ability.[173]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 29]

Liberation theology turned such genealogy upside-down to honor laboring people. As one worker put it, "Scripture not only makes the skill of laboring people immortally famous, but puts down their parentage, and birth places in contrast to that of many princes. Thus in Hiram's case (1 Kings 7:13-47; 2 Chronicles 2:14), the brass-founder's family is recorded."[174] According to Bolton, Solomon was satisfied with nothing less than the best in building the temple because there was a religious quality in work well done. Thus Hiram, who was not even a Jew, but was an artisan of great skill, was asked to come from Tyre to make the bronze pillars for the temple.

Coats-of-arms, like genealogy, were used by the landlord class to glorify its "race." And as with genealogy, the working class turned coats-of-arms to its own honor: cloth workers had a coat of arms with a tezel on it, taylors had one with a robe, grocers a clove, sailors an anchor.[175] This religion of class unity dated back to the pre-Reformation era, the guild system, and confraternities.[176] Guild priests were employed by the guild and looked to the needs of laboring people.[177] In the spirituality of the working class and embodied in their coats-of-arms was the belief that their labor was what accounted for progress and civilization. It was said that without those like Tubal Cain, the iron worker, hammer-smith, and founder of the guild of metal-workers, described in Genesis 4:22 and Ecclesiasticus, "there can be no civilization."[178] Labor was an honor:

Some say London is a place of vice and should be reduced to servility. But they are wrong. Industry and civil virtue are the lawful things of this life. Their nearest object is honor and honest wealth. It is a foul note to brand them as associated with bondage, or give them any the least disparagement at all. The ancient excellent policy of England did and does constitute corporations of artisans and adorns companies with banners of arms.[179]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 30]

Capitalist Theology: Obedience and Labor. Besides racism and its variants, a second doctrine of gentry theology against which liberation theology did spiritual combat in defending labor's golden rule was the virtue of obedience. This was touched upon earlier. The doctrine of revolution itself, antinomianism, was a theological rejection of the idea that God wanted laboring people to be obedient to predation, that is, that they should suffer their "cross and passion" with humility, self-denial, and meekness.[180] The chief offense in the view of landlord religion was pride, as manifested by ambition for leveling the wealth and life style of the magnates. God's will for labor, said Robert Persons, S.J., was the "old simplicity, both in apparel, diet, innocency of life, and plainness of dealing and conversation."[181] Persons wanted to restore the system of feudal servitude and overthrow the farmers and workers who had advanced their economic rights.[182] His obedience doctrine was a one-way street: when labor was in power, there was no virtue in submission.

A second area of spiritual struggle that has also been touched upon was labor value. The working-class biblical texts, feast days, songs and saints discussed earlier each arose in the context of struggle against gentry propaganda about unearned wealth being a sacred windfall from God, something that did not come from laboring people.[183] Illustrative of such propaganda were the writings of the Catholic landlord Thomas Meynell of North Kilvington in Yorkshire. He gave thanks in his commonplace book because "God" had always maintained him in his landlord status.[184] In addition to being a windfall, his class maintained wealth was also a reward to them for being morally superior to the working class, "Our ancestors who raised their titles upon noble actions were men of heaven."[185] The wealthy held themselves up as "a type of the heavenly lord," the "image and splendor of the lord's divinity."[186] One apologist, said by bibliographer Joseph Gillow to have been "for many years in great favor, especially among [gentry] Catholics," summarized the landlords' glorification of their idleness:

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 31]

O you noble men, God uses you as Adam in terrestrial paradise, he suffereth you to eat the corn at ease, which others have sowed, and the wine which others pressed; he causes your meat to come to your table, as if it were borne by certain invisible engines; he holds the elements, creatures, and men in breath, to supply your necessities.[187]

It was against such mystification that revolutionary theologians like Bolton, Petty, White and Hawkins directed their propaganda in behalf of labor-value. Labor's celebration of the texts about slave abolition and agrarian reform among the ancient Romans and the communist passages from the Acts of the Apostles was also in the context of spiritual class struggle. Gentry literature in behalf of unearned wealth cited as authority the Roman landlord classics and the early Christian writers such as the slave-owning pope, Gregory the Great, who taught that God made producers lowly.[188] God did this, according to Gregory, in order to punish workers for being sinners. Gregory, in his theology of slavery, as developed in The Pastoral Care, wrote that the working class was predetermined to evil. It was because of their propensity to sin that working people had to have landlords on their back:

Sin (culpa) subordinates some to others in accordance with the variable order of merits; this diversity, which arises from vice is established by divine judgment. Man is not intended to live in equality.[189]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 32]

Elsewhere Gregory remarked, "Nature begets all men equal, but by reason of their varying merits, a mysterious dispensation sets some beneath others. This diversity in condition, which is due to sin, is rightly ordained by the judgment of God."[190] Gregory was from a Roman capitalist family. Even as pope he resided on his family's property and owned slaves. In contrast to Gregory, liberation theology taught that labor was good and capitalism was sin.

Along with Gregory, 17th-century antinomians contended with the writings of Catholic gentry John Abbott, Robert Wintour, and their Protestant counterpart, the Laudian Henry Hammond. These men found in their "esteemed" classics, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Isidore of Seville (560-636 AD), Pope Gregory VII (1020-1085, Hildebrand), and John of Salisbury (d. 1180), that the origin of productive labor was in the Fall, in sin, in the devil, in evil, and in biblical characters like Cain, who was ignoble to his brother and Noah's son Shem, who was a "churl" to his father.[191] The class system was both punishment for sin and a way to occupy laboring people and keep them from further sin.[192] In Latin America and Africa the slave theology which imperialism and its clergy taught at the time was that Indians and Africans were enserfed and enslaved because of their sinfulness.[193] Augustine in City of God Against the Pagans wrote, "The prime cause of servitude is sin, which brings people under the dominion of others, which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom there is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offense."[194] A gentry pamphlet commented about the Adam and Eve origins of labor and laboring people:

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 33]

The world was as yet in her cradle, and man was no more than borne, when God making a place of justice of terrestrial paradise, pronounced against him the sentence of labor and pain, and afterwards wrote, you shall eat your bread with the sweat of your brow.[195]

As noted, liberation theology used the labor-value, agrarian reform and slave abolition classics that began with ancient Rome to argue against the gentry classics. But it was with Thomas Aquinas that the levelers especially did battle, as he was most frequently cited in the writings of landlords like George Calvert, the Maryland proprietor's father.[196] Aquinas was from the landlord class.[197] The Council of Trent (1545-1564) had sparked a revival of interest in him and his repetition of Aristotle's conservative views of society.[198] He was more authoritative with the 17th-century gentry than he had been in his own time. One does not find in Aquinas a justification for the doctrines that had been taught by liberation theology from ancient times. Instead it was said that landlords collected the rent as "God's elected stewards of His goods."[199] Heaven was the ideal that should be imitated on earth, a place both of contemplation (mental prayer, the "beatific vision") and of military orders of angels, but not of productive labor.[200] The further from the material, the closer to God.[201]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 34]

The preference of the 17-century landlords for Aquinas was matched by a dislike for his materialist rival, William of Ockham (1280-1349), a Franciscan priest from a farming family near London. As a materialist, Ockham rejected the philosophic idealism of Aristotle and of his 12th and 13th-century followers, such as Aquinas. Like many Franciscans, Ockham identified with the poor and battled against the efforts of the French landlord class and of their papal puppet to force the Franciscan order to become landlords.[202] In Ockham's view, power came from the people. They had the right of revolution in church and state. Ockham gave his support to the overthrow the French Pope, John XXII at Avignon.[203] Frederick Engels paid his respects to Ockham's materialism:

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 35]

Materialism is the natural-born son of Great Britain. The British schoolman, Duns Scotus [meaning William of Ockham] had already asked, "Whether it was impossible for matter to think." In order to effect this miracle, he took refuge in God's omnipotence, i.e., he made theology preach materialism. Moreover, he was a nominalist. Nominalism, the first form of materialism is chiefly found among the English schoolmen.[204]

[CHAPTER ONE, 2011 ed., p. 36]

Conclusion. To sum up, this chapter has outlined the European background of Maryland's liberation theology. Working class religion grew out of and defended labor's golden rule. It was characterized by the celebration of labor and by both a material and spiritual revolution against capital. For each doctrine of gentry religion, the working class had its own doctrine, which as Segundo points out, was in line with the gospel of Jesus. The wealthy identified their class system with God's order, the people's theology taught revolution, leveling and agrarian and labor reform in order to achieve a classless society. Landlordism was racist, labor was class conscious and hated racism. Capital taught that labor and laboring people were evil. Liberation theology said it was good. The gentry maintained their wealth was from God, labor that it was from theft. During the Civil War period the English working class made considerable progress in establishing its golden rule at the grass-roots and in large measure at the national level.

(Figure omitted)

Figure 1-1: Chesapeake tobacco farmer working his field[205]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 37]

CHAPTER 2

Labor Value: Crux of Liberation Theology and the Golden Rule

The Catholics who came to America brought with them the "atheism and pretended religion," about which the capitalist Cecil Calvert complained. This liberation theology had been part of their lives and the just society for which they had battled in Europe. In Maryland they established a similar golden rule both in their personal lives and at the provincial level. This chapter describes their lives and beliefs.

The Maryland Catholics. The first permanent European settlement in the Chesapeake Bay area was established in 1607 at Jamestown. The Maryland settlement began in 1634 at St. Mary's City. By 1660 about 4,000 Catholics and Protestants had migrated to Maryland, 95% of whom were working class.[206] A quarter of the migrants were Catholic.[207] Catholics came to Maryland in greater proportion than to the other North American colonies because they were actively recruited by land-speculator Cecil Calvert. He and the Catholic clergy ran a London-based migration office in the 1630s.[208] If the desire to get out from underneath the class system in Europe pushed the Catholics toward America, the presence of Catholic clergy during much of the period pulled them specifically to Maryland.[209]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 38]

Even Catholics who had settled earlier in New England, Brazil, Virginia, and the West Indies, such as Richard Gardiner (1616-1651), re-located to Maryland. Gardiner came from Virginia in 1637 with his wife, four children, and two youths whom he employed as field-hands.[210] Into the Catholic ranks also came the Maryland Protestants and Indians who converted. The Protestants converted because there was often no Protestant clergy.[211] Indians joined because the Europeans interested them in forming Basic Christian Communities (BCCs) in their villages or because they married Catholics or lived in close proximity to or worked for Catholics. Some learned English and attended European services.[212] They liked the singing, baroque liturgy, spirituality, educated clergy and liberation theology.[213] By 1642 there were several hundred Indian Catholics out of a total Maryland Indian population of between 5,000 and 7,000.[214] The total figure included about 1,665 Conoy (Piscataway, Yeocomico), 300 Patuxent, and 1,000 Accomac.[215] From the 17th century to the present, Catholicism has had a continuous existence among the Conoy.[216]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 39]

A Charism of "Hard Labor." The work lives of the Catholics involved "hard labor" and a bountiful return.[217] As noted, liberation theology called work a charism from God. The anonymous worker who authored the pamphlet, Complaint from Heaven with a Hue and Cry (1676), looking back to the first-half of the 17th century, summarized his work life:

We confess a great many of us came in servants to others, but we adventured our lives for it, and got our poor living with hard labor out of the ground in a terrible wilderness, and soon have advanced ourselves much thereby.[218]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 40]

In 1649 the Catholic laborer Nicholas Keiting described his farm work with pride as "truly accomplished."[219] The Chesapeake was, as pamphleteer Gerrard Winstanley put it, an Eden with labor (usufruct) its foundation.[220]

Indian as well as European Catholics had a love for their labor. One of the Europeans in 1635 wrote of the Catholic Indians, "The werowance [king or leader] himself plants corn, makes his own bow and arrows, his canoe, his mantle, shoes, and whatever else belongs unto him, as any other common Indian."[221] Similarly the Conoy "queen" did the normal labor of a woman, which included field work, preparing meals, dressing meat, baking bread, and weaving baskets and mats from rushes. The mats were used as beds and to cover the houses.[222] The Conoy took nothing for free, as one account put it, "You can do them no favor, but they will return it."[223] The Maryland Indians were part of the Algonquian language group and had been farming in the Chesapeake region since at least 800 A.D.[224] They traded their tobacco, corn, bean, pumpkin, and deer skin surplus for beaver pelts and other products throughout northeast America with tribes such as the Iroquois-speaking Susquehannock, as well as with tribes to the west and south.

Maryland Catholics never lacked for the necessities. At the same time, because they had little money, they stayed at home, worked in the fields, sat in their yards in the warm months and before their fire in the cold months and talked, read the Bible, pamphlets and books, sang hymns and ballards, visited the neighbors and relatives, chewed or smoked tobacco, fished, trapped and swam. On Sundays and some 40 feast days they had religious services and celebrations. Periodically throughout the year they met at the provincial level for court, market and assembly days and for militia musters. Women as well as men between ages 14 and 40 were part of the militia, drilled monthly and had their own arms and ammunition.[225]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 41]

By 1640 the Catholics had set up 5 congregations or BCCs. The one at St. Mary's City included a chapel built in 1638.[226] The second was at Newton on St. Clement's Bay. Starting in 1638 it met at the home of Luke Gardiner.[227] A chapel was built there in 1661. The third Catholic community was at Port Tobacco Hundred in what is now Charles County. As at Newton, no chapel was built at Port Tobacco until the 1660s, but Andrew White, S.J. (1579-1656) was ministering there by 1640.[228] There were also several BCCs among the Catholic Indians.

The positive view of the Maryland Catholics towards labor differed from that of the get-rich-quick capitalists in early Virginia. The Virginians from their landing in 1607 until well into the 1630s were dependent on the Virginia Company, the Dutch, and the Powhatans for food.[229] Historian Helen Rountree found that early Virginia was weighed down with "gentlemen" and "adverse to labor."[230] The first corn crop planted in Virginia was in 1611, five years after settlement. It was put in by Indian captives, not by Europeans.[231] In 1618 the Europeans started planting tobacco because it brought a substantial financial return. But in emphasizing tobacco, the Virginians neglected to plant food crops. This resulted in frequent raids against their neighboring Powhatans to steal grain supplies, especially in years of poor harvest.[232]

Work Life. The labor charism of the Maryland farmers involved subsistence and market farming of crops such as grain, beans, pumpkins, tobacco, livestock, and cider. From the start the Catholics were self-sufficient in food production. Men, women, and children age 11 and up did field labor. During the growing season, they were out from 6:00 in the morning until 7:00 in the evening. At midday when the heat was intense there would be a prolonged (2 hours or more) rest period, when lunch (dinner) would be eaten and a nap taken. On Saturdays they would work half a day, and in slack seasons there would be no Saturday work.

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 42]

Women and older children were at no disadvantage in doing the work involved in tobacco and corn husbandry. Hilary Beckles writes that even in the more demanding work of sugar production in the Caribbean, the indentured and slave women "worked together in the same gangs with men from sun-up til sun-down."[233] The work required stamina but not great strength. At least in Barbados, the women worked in the fields until "far gone in their pregnancy." They were back at work within two weeks of delivery, their babies strapped to their backs or looked after by their older brothers or sisters.[234] Indian historian Helen Rountree maintains that because Indian women were both food producers and food preparers, they had a higher status in their society than the European women.[235] Rountree may be accurate that Indians women carried their own weight, but she is not correct that the European women in Maryland worked any less than the Indians.

The work of a family would typically include planting two or three acres of corn (2,420 hills) yielding 7 barrels. This was enough to feed a household for a year. In addition to their subsistence, most Maryland farmers also planted a market crop of tobacco. Tobacco was labor intensive, requiring diligence for ten months of the year. It involved more work per unit of output than any other commercial crop except flax and rice. It did not do well under gang labor, like sugar or cotton. A latter-day farmer commented on the work demanded by tobacco:

It would startle even an old planter to see an exact account of the labor devoured by an acre of tobacco, and the preparation of the crop for market. . . Farmers would be astonished to discover how often he had passed over the land, and the tobacco through their hands, in fallowing, hilling, cutting off hills, planting and replantings, toppings, succerings, weedings, cuttings, picking up, removing out of ground by hand, hanging, striking, stripping, stemming, and prizing.[236]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 43]

Three acres of tobacco was the maximum a family could farm. It took several months between April and June to prepare some 9,000 hills about four feet apart at 320 hills per day. On these hills were planted 3,000 to 10,000 tobacco plants. Families would rush out of bed when it rained at transplanting time in early June. During the growing season the family had to keep the ground clear of weeds by continuous hoeing. Tobacco worms had to be picked off daily. Within a month of transplanting, the plant grew to a foot high. After the plants had put out about nine leaves, they were topped to prevent flowering and to force maximum growth in the existing leaves. The workers' large thumb nail, hardened in a candle, served as a tool for the topping process.[237] The family cut down the entire plant in September. The stalks were then taken to specially built houses where they were pegged and hung to cure in the air. It could take six weeks for the tobacco to reach the proper texture. Finally, the plants were "struck" down and packed in moist weather when the leaves were made pliable by the dampness. They were stripped off the stalks, bundled into "hands," and packed into hogsheads. Families would stay up late at night involved in the stripping, stemming and packing. Average tobacco production rose from 700 pounds per family in the 1630s to 1,300 (4 hogsheads) in the 1650s.[238] The total provincial value of the tobacco as it left the farm in the 1640s was worth between £800 and £1,200.[239] A family's average yearly income came to between £5 and £10 per year.[240]

Tobacco farming took both muscle power and brain power. Brain-power involved being knowledgeable about soils, rainfall, mean temperatures, planting, tending, curing, and packing tobacco. Gloria Main comments on the skill demanded in tobacco production:

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 44]

The success of tobacco culture demands the kind of knowledge acquired only through long experience and diligent attention to detail. Failure to make a proper judgment at any one of the crucial steps in harvesting, curing, and packing might not only reduce the quality of the product but even damage it beyond salvage by inducing fermentation and ultimate spoilage.[241]

Frequent court cases testified to the skill needed in production and the lack thereof.[242]

Along with their field crops, the work-life of the Maryland Catholics included other tasks such as tending the poultry, hogs, and cattle, making butter and cheese, pounding corn in a mortar into meal, spinning flax and wool, winding silk from the worms, gathering fruits, looking after the house and children, washing, cooking, tending the herb and salad garden, and gathering greens in the wild.[243] A 50-acre Maryland farm consisted of one-half the land in woods, one-fourth in pasture, one-tenth under cultivation, and the rest fallow and waste.[244]

The seriousness with which the Catholics took their work can be gagged from their government records. Moist days in spring and early summer were good for planting. On such days, they canceled their governmental business to do their farming. Thus, a court day at St. Marys on June 25, 1650, broke up "upon the earnest motion of the inhabitants to be discharged, it being very like to be plantable weather."[245] Similarly, a message from the Maryland assembly to Cecil Calvert in England declared the legislators had no time to argue with him about his proposals, which they rejected, as they had to be about their farm work, "Most of us are forced upon necessary employment in a crop at this time of year, most of us having no other means of subsistence."[246]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 45]

Another illustration of the seriousness with which they took their work was their response to the depression in prices for tobacco and other farm products between 1638 and 1645 in tobacco prices. They successfully continued subsistence farming for self-consumption, which included making their own textiles with sheep and wool cards, flax and hackles, and spinning wheels. Most also responded "creatively" to the depression, as one study put it. Instead of "retreating into only subsistence and riding out the storm," they improved productivity and increased output per worker in the middle decades of the seventeenth century. Tighter and more-careful packaging led to permanent savings in shipping costs.[247] They experimented with new exports like grain, pelts, meat, and wood products. They were not unlike their English counterparts who, in the words of historian Robert Allen, created a revolution in agricultural productivity in the 16th and 17th century by the introduction of new seed varieties and labor-intensive innovations.[248]

Indian Work Life. The work life of the Catholic Indians was similar to their European counterparts. Some Indians worked as wage laborers and artisans among the Europeans, just as some Europeans lived and worked in the Indian villages.[249] For the most part, however, the Conoy were and had been prior to the European arrival, sedentary agrarians, which did not exclude them from foraging like the Europeans for berries, fruits such as persimmon, and nuts such as hickory, walnuts, chestnuts, chinquapin, and beech. Both Europeans and Indians also foraged for fiber for cordage, for roots and plants such as arrow drum and its tuckahoe root and for wild greens in the meadows.[250] The Indians raised their crops, assimilated iron technology, and sold their surplus, not unlike the European workers. Between 1632 and 1638 the Indian village on Kent Island sold to the London ships some 2,843 bushels of maize worth £568 at 4s per bushel, 6,348 pounds of tobacco worth £106 at 4d per pound, and 7,488 pounds of beaver pelts worth £4,493 at 12s per pound.[251] Because of the warmer climate, the Maryland beaver pelts were not of high quality. It was the Susquehannocks to the North and their Iroquois trading partners on the Great Lakes who excelled in this. But the Conoy learned to cure deer skins which they traded to the Europeans.[252]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 46]

Because there was a division of labor with the Conoy men doing most of the hunting and fishing and the women doing much of the agricultural work, Europeans often assumed the men were lazy and did not have positive views about labor. But as Helen Rountree notes, "the men had their hands full being hunters and fishers; yet the English persisted for centuries in viewing them as lazy."[253] Besides white-tailed deer, which were hunted by individual men year-round and by whole villages in communal hunts in the late fall, they also trapped raccoons, opossums, muskrats, wild turkeys, and brown bears.[254] At night they hunted with fire in a canoe to attract fish.[255] The Conoy were a riverine people and the construction of weirs for fishing and of dugout canoes was among their skills.[256]

Labor's Celebration. For the Maryland Catholics, both white and Indian, like for their counterparts in England, labor was as much the center of their religious life as of their work life. They celebrated their work in their personal devotions and in their collective liturgical services and feast days. The inclusion of labor themes in their collectives was enhanced because working people (lay readers) often led the BCCs. An example of worker leadership was recorded by a priest in 1648. At the moment of his returning to Maryland after being absent for several years, the priest found the Catholics gathered together on a Sunday engaged in a prayer and marriage service being conducted by the laity.[257] In some years during the Civil War period Catholics had as many as three clergy, but at other times several years would pass without clergy.[258] Both clergy and workers helped in the festivities which included parades, processions and fireworks. Among the first activities when the Catholics landed in Maryland on March 25, 1634 was a procession.

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 47]

The baptisms, weddings, funerals and other liturgy of the Maryland Catholics, in celebrating labor, productivity, fertility and husbandry, followed the traditional eight feast-day agrarian cycle. A festival came every six weeks: Christmas, the first Sunday in Lent, Easter, Whitsun, Sts. Peter and Paul (June 29), the Assumption (August 15), Michaelmas (September 29), and All Saints (November 1). The tobacco, corn and similar crop cycles of growing, curing, and packing were integrated with the liturgical cycle and celebrated by it. The first part of the tobacco and corn cycle began with lent and Lady Day (March 25) in early spring. The family made seedbeds and sowed tobacco seeds kept from the previous year. By Whitsun in early June the plants had grown to three inches and were transplanted. Growing ended at Michelmas (September 29) when the second part of the tobacco and corn cycle, the harvesting and for tobacco the curing process, began. The third part of the cycle, packing, coincided with the period around All Saints (November 1) and Martinmas (November 11).

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 48]

Besides the feastday liturgical cycle, the Catholics celebrated other work-related agrarian customs: Whitsun ales (the seventh Sunday after Easter), may-poles, Morris dancing, pageants, BCC pipers, plays and drama, dancing around a bonfire and singing, as on the feast of St. John, ringing bells, shooting off guns, lighting candles, raising cheers, drinking and banqueting, and patron saints such as St. Anne, who brought fertility and protected pregnant mothers, especially in childbirth.[259] The writings of the Catholic humanist, Desiderius Erasmus (d. 1536), which circulated in the 17th-century Chesapeake, praised the vernacular scriptures because they allowed "The farmer to sing some portion of them at the plow, the weaver to hum some part of them to the movement of his shuttle and the traveler to lighten the weariness of the journey with stories of this kind!"[260] Typical of their celebrations was the feast of Ignatius Loyola on July 31. Loyola was the founder of the Jesuit order which ministered in Maryland. The following describes the nocturnal part of the festival at St. Mary's in 1646:

"Mindful" runs the record, "of the solemn custom, the anniversary of the holy father being ended, they wanted the night also consecrated to the honor of the same by continued discharge of artillery." Accordingly they kept up the cannonade throughout the whole night.[261]

As in Europe, the theology of the Maryland working class reversed the gentry beliefs about labor. In the 17th-century Thomistic-influenced landlord pamphlets, the heavenly order was held to resemble the Platonic ideal - changeless and motionless.[262] Prayer and religious practices, and even public service, meaning ruling and soldiering, were compatible with the Platonic ideal, but not manual labor. God himself and the angels were warriors who combined contemplation and war. Catholic capitalists like Garrat Barry lived the tradition of the monk-knights and militarized prayer. They praised themselves for "their excellence of war-like virtue," or what one of their critics called "heroic laziness."[263] Catholic landlords like Richard Gerard came to Maryland from Lancashire in 1634 but left within six months to follow the "honorable" career of a soldier in the Spanish army against the Dutch. Manual labor was not honorable.[264]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 49]

Labor Value. As was seen in England, worker religion, reflecting life's experience, centered on labor as the source of value and the corollary, that labor should enjoy its fruits. The working people were not concerned about formulating a theory of economic activity, but the idea that God wanted a society in which they enjoyed the benefits of their labor was basic to their theology and to their government. They quoted the the commandment against theft and the biblical admonition: if you do not work, you do not eat (2 Th. 3:10). The later passage was incorporated into the first Soviet Constitution and, as in Maryland, became the foundation of their society. Capitalist parasitism was not allowed. Historian Aron Gurevich has remarked, "In a class society, the commandment `Thou shalt not steal' protected property in a way that was much in the interests of the `haves'."[265] But in Maryland, where the society was dominated by labor, the commandment was used to justify the confiscation of wealth that labor had created and capital had appropriated.[266]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 50]

A significant aspect of the Catholics' labor theory of value was their belief about land ownership, which carried on the common land tradition among both the English and Gaelic laboring people and the American Indians.[267] Their land belief based on labor (usufruct), and rejection of land speculation or profit from buying and selling land.[268] Deserted fields could be used by anyone who wanted to use them. What one authority said concerning Indian title applied equally to the Maryland Catholics' title, "Indian title was originally one of aboriginal use and occupancy."[269] A contemporary account stated in 1635 that the Conoy "show no great desire of heaping wealth. If they were Christians and would live so free from covetousness, and many other vices which abound in Christendom, they would be a brave people."[270] Like the Maryland Catholics, the Conoy had no objection to wealth but, as another contemporary observed, they found collective rather than individual wealth to be in their interests.[271] Wealth such as tobacco and corn was held in common warehouses and storage pits.

The labor theory of value reversed capitalist religion and its justification of the class system. The proponents of capitalist theology, as championed by magnates such as the Calverts, were Thomas Aquinas and the other scholastics.[272] Andrew White, S.J., a professor of Thomistic theology at Valladolid and Seville in Spain prior to his arrival in Maryland, followed the morality of Aquinas in advising Calvert in 1639 to pursue a monopolistic course that would have impoverished the Maryland workers. White wrote:

As in France, Spain, and Italy, the sovereigns appropriate the sale of certain things for themselves, so I conceive your lordship for a time to monopolize certain trades as bringing in a brickman to serve you for years and obliging all to take so many bricks of him. . . and for this a convenient price may be set on the thousand, no man permitted to make bricks. . . The like I say of carpenters, hatters, sawyers, coopers, smiths, etc.[273]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 51]

At another point White advised Calvert to set up a store in Maryland like the Duke of Florence did in his colony. The store would have had a monopoly in selling all commodities shipped into the country. This would bring "a very great gain" to Calvert.[274]

Thomistic philosophy was favored by capitalism because, as Barry Gordon points out, it emphasized commutative (individualistic), not distributive (class) justice. Commutative (from commutatio or transaction) justice was the classical Greek and scholastic term for the government of relations of individual to individual. Distributive justice was the term for class justice, that is, for the obligation of the community to the individual. Historian Keith Luria has shown that the spirituality of laboring people generally was, as might be expected, sensitive to the class and collective needs that grew out of the labor theory of value.[275]

Gordon has written about the absence of the labor theory of value from Aquinas, "Because he related economic analysis mainly to questions of commutative [individualistic] rather than distributive justice, Aquinas offers little by way of insight into the theory of income distribution."[276] The wealth produced by laboring people in Aquinas' day ended up disproportionately monopolized by the small percentage that were landlords and capitalists. This was the nature of the class system and capitalist theology was not concerned about changing it. In one of his earliest works, Commentary on the Sentences (of Peter Lombard), Aquinas did concur with Lombard, for whom commutative and distributive exchange were linked together by one general end, the transfer of the necessities of life.[277] However, 16 years later when he started writing his main work, the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas had abandoned that approach.[278]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 52]

Class (Distributive) Justice: Collective Economics and Token Almsgiving. Labor value's golden rule in Maryland had a place neither for the narrow individualism of scholastic theology nor for the various doctrines which 17th-century capitalism associated with commutative (individualistic) exchange, such as token almsgiving and just price.

Token almsgiving, which dated back to the classical writers, involved the superficial redistribution of the labor value stolen by capital. As described in seventeenth-century pamphlets, this type of almsgiving was characterized by funeral almsgiving, feast-day donations, and giving succor to a ritual number of poor, usually twelve.[279] Such charity was inefficient and little adapted to material needs. It was meant to satisfy the conscience and propaganda of the gentry, not to address the issue of labor value and the class system. While injunctions by landlord clergy to give generously to the poor had in some periods brought a cumulative redistribution of wealth, it was in the direction of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and monasteries. The hierarchy, which was among Europe's largest landlords, called itself the "poorest of the poor" and took a preference in alms.[280] The redistribution did not reduce but increased the monopoly of wealth. Nicholas Caussin, an English priest in the scholastic tradition illustrated in 1634 the type of income distribution favored by capital:

If you wish to magnify charity toward persons necessitious, cast your eye upon Anne of Austria, Queen of Poland. She was accustomed to serve twelve poor people every Monday. This was the very same day she yielded her soul up to God. When she had scarcely so much left as a little breath on her lips, she asked that she might once more wait on the poor at dinner, and that death might close her eyes when she opened her hands to charity.[281]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 53]

The scholastic authority Domingo de Soto at the University of Salamanca, as well as Gregory the Great and Salvian of Marseille condemned working class efforts to substantially address capital's theft of labor's value and the poverty it caused, saying removal of the indigent from the streets would result in grave spiritual harm by denying the faithful the opportunity of practicing charity.[282] Contrary to the theology of the working class which made rebellion endemic in Maryland, as it had been in the middle ages, Aquinas said that poverty was inevitable and could be an opportunity for virtue.[283] Monastic landlords had set the norm for capitalist almsgiving by doling out in alms about 3% of the revenue which they received from their tenants and a similar amount in less formal charity.[284] About problems such as homelessness and healthcare the monks did nothing. Guest houses served rich travelers, not the homeless.[285]

Symbolic of present-day token almsgiving was Mother Teresa (Agnes Bojaxhiu of Albania, 1910-1998), the hero of India's Congress party. The Congress capitalists did not want social services in the hands of the people. Congress sought to reduce taxation, limit state services, and to substitute charity for the few in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NGOs were funded by foundations, individuals and foreign sources like the World Bank. This charity industry favored by the Congress party was not for the benefit of the people but to cover over the greed of the imperialist-capitalist system.

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 54]

Mother Teresa was centered in Calcutta, the communist-led capital of the Indian state of West Bengal. The local Communist Catholics criticized her for promoting privatized health care, education and nutrition. Her health care organization eliminated normal medical practices like blood tests to distinguish ailments (malaria from other illnesses) and the curable from the incurable. For the terminally ill her nuns offered no relief for pain. Her brand of Catholicism was the cult of death and suffering with the passivity and abjection of working people being a virtue.[286] Mother Teresa's token health care contrasted with that of 17th-century Maryland, where the assembly's socialized regulation of medical fees defeated corporate attempts at health-care monopolization for profit.[287]

Mother Teresa's health care also contrasts with the approach of the Sisters of Charity in Cuba. Fidel Castro expressed his admiration for the Catholic religious workers whose spiritual values made them "model communists" for every party member:

There's a center for congenitally subnormal children in Havana. Nuns and Communists work shoulder to shoulder in that hospital. I greatly admire the work those religious Sisters are doing, and I'm not just saying this to you; I've said it publicly. Sometimes, I've made comparisons. Some of the old people's homes that are run by nuns are more efficient and economical than those that are run by our own administrators. Is it because we lack people who are willing to work round the clock? No. It would be unfair if I failed to say that there are thousands of nurses, doctors, health technicians and other hospital employees who do hard, difficult work with love and dedication, exactly as a Sister of Charity does.

However, in addition to working with love, the Sisters of Charity and those of other religious Orders are very strict about the use of resources; they're very thrifty, and the institutions they run are very economical. I say this because we're glad to help those institutions. . . During a session of the National Assembly, I spoke about those old people's homes and, making a comparative analysis of the costs, said that the nuns were model Communists - it was broadcast on television all over the country. I've always spoken of the nuns as a model for Communists to follow, because I think they have all the qualities we'd like our Party members to have.[288]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 55]

Another example of tokenism in recent times deals with the abortion politics of the church hierarchy. In Italy many Catholic communists believe abortion is wrong and work to eliminate its economic causes. Among these isGiglia Tedesco a leader in the Italian senate. In World War II she served as the military commander of the resistance against fascism at Ponte Marmaro near Rome.[289] She joined the Italian Communist Party (Partito Comunista Italiano, PCI) and after the war was elected to the party's central committee. In the 1960s and 1970s she served as a Catholic-communist senator in the 315-member senate and later was the senate vice-president.[290] She helped enact legislation for single women who headed families that gave them free day care, health care and housing along with full employment and wages equal to men.[291] This took away the cause of abortion, the economic motive.

In contrast the pope and his capitalist masters in the Christian Democratic Party (Partito Democrazia Cristiana, DC) verbalized anti-abortion language because it cost them no money to do so. But they opposed the communist program that made abortion economically unnecessary because that did cost them money.[292] Tedesco commented that the communists, unlike the Christian Democrats, rejected the substitution of consumerism and narrow individualism in place of class solidarity:

The main thrust of our efforts was to overcome exaggerated individualism and likewise the closed personalistic understanding of Christianity. We did so because we were then, and we still are, convinced that at the base of the capitalistic ideology and the reality of capitalism lies the most unrestrained, frentic form of individualism and the most irrational rejection of any form of limitations so as to be able to realize one's own personal-ego for one's own self. At the basis of capitalist ideology lies the exasperated search and the infuriating desire of success, of immediate happiness, of wealth and of money.[293]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 56]

Tedesco argued in addition that “unmolded and unbounded individualism which is the real cancer that is corrupting the fibers of our society. It is precisely this uncontrollable and intemperate individualism which is the cause of the moral deprivation, the cultural pollution and the decay of ideals in our families, in our society, and in our common living together, and in the whole of our very Western civilization.”[294]

In criticizing the capitalist culture that necessitates abortion, Tedesco observed further, “I ask myself, and I ask you, whether it isn't the unleashing of this irrational, intemperate individualism which leads to other irrational and intemperate corporate-sector interests which are closed in upon themselves. The same is true of neighborhoods, zones and areas which look exclusively to their own interests. They look completely in upon only themselves. This frantic tendency toward sector or corporate interests as opposed to global interests increases the areas or zones of social exclusion. Is it not this thinking about only one's self, looking in upon one's own navel, which has brought about the protest of the third and fourth worlds, of the socially excluded, of those on the margin of society and of those who have been forced into poverty? Is this not due to the loss of every form of human solidarity and the disinterest for the common well being?”[295]

It was to solve the problems which individualism and tokenism ignored that Catholics in Italy joined the communist movement. Some 200,000 PCI rank-and-filers are Catholics.[296] Half of the active parish members in working-class dioceses such as Florence are party members and one-third of the Italian population in the recent past voted PCI.[297]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 57]

Similarly in Colombia Catholic revolutionaries like the priest Camilo Torres, took a stand against the health care, housing, education and job security tokenism of his country, finding even in Thomas Aquinas a justification for his politics:

In Catholicism the principal foundation is love for neighbor. "If you love your fellow man, you have carried out your obligations." In order to be true, this love must search for effectiveness. If the beneficence, the alms, the few free schools, the few housing projects - everything that has been given the name "charity" - does not succeed in feeding the majority of the hungary, or clothing the majority of the naked, or teaching the majority of the illiterate, then we must search for effective means to bring about the welfare of the majority.

The privileged minority which holds power is not going to look for such means because, generally, effective means will oblige the minority to sacrifice its privileges. For example, in order to see to it that there is more employment in Colombia, it would be better for them not to take their capital out of the country in dollars but rather to invest it in sources of employment. But as the Colombian peso is devalued day after day, those with money and power will never prohibit the export of money because in this way they escape the consequences of devaluation.

It is necessary, then, to take power away from the privileged minority in order to give it to the poor majority. This, done rapidly, is the essence of the revolution. The revolution can be peaceful, if the minority does not give violent resistance.[298]

Torres advocated that revolution was the way to obtain a government which would feed the hungry, clothe the naked and teach the ignorant. He maintained that revolution was not only permitted, it was obligatory for Christians, since it was the only effective and complete way to achieve love for all. Quoting Aquinas, he stated:

It is certain that "there is no authority except from God" (Romans 13:1), but St. Thomas says that the concrete assignment of authority comes from the people. When an authority is against the people, that authority is not legitimate and is called tyranny. Christians can and must fight against tyranny. The present government is tyrannical because only twenty percent of the electorate supports it and because its decisions come from the privileged minority.[299]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 58]

Torres pointed out that the “temporal defects of the Church must not scandalize us. The Church is human. What is important is to believe that it is also divine and that, if we Christians fulfill our obligation of love of neighbor effectively, we are strengthening the Church. I have left the duties and the privileges of the clergy, but I have not stopped being a priest. I believe that I have given myself to the revolution out of love of my neighbor. I have stopped saying Mass in order to realize that love of neighbor in the temporal, economic and social sphere. When I have accomplished the revolution, I will again offer Mass, if God permits. I believe that thus I am following the command of Christ. ‘So then, if you are bringing your offering to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, go and be reconciled with your brother first and then come back and present your offering.’" (Matthew 5:23-24).[300]

In the liberation theology of the Maryland Catholics, poverty, ineffectiveness and passivity were neither inevitable or desirable. All were workers and their brothers' keepers. Neighbors prevented impoverishment at the local level by helping each other in framing buildings, hunting, gathering corn, and housing and packing tobacco. They lent tools and exchanged salt, corn, liquor, meat, and cloth from family stocks when needed.[301] Family and neighborhood networks along with assembly funding provided for the elderly, disabled and orphans. Historian Michael Graham writes:

These [good neighbor] patterns can be seen over and over in the lives of the Catholic men who worshiped at the Newton church. For example, they publicly supported one another through the signing of one another's documents; that they did so signals the importance of the informal relationships upon which these more formal, legal relationships were based. . . Death especially called upon friends to stand by one another.[302]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 59]

At the provincial level Catholics used their collective muscle in the assembly to protect their class from being impoverished. Like the communist community in the Acts of the Apostles, in the monastic communities and in the early Plymouth settlement, which had legislation that provided for the community of goods and provision, Maryland's assembly made provisions outlawing various capitalist practices, such as hoarding, engrossing and forestalling.[303] In England too, the English revolution achieved a system of working class economic security. The levelers in their newsletters, pamphlets and marches on Parliament demanded that all the "ancient rights and donations belonging to the poor, such as alms houses, enclosed commons, etc. throughout all parts of the land, now embezzled and converted to other uses, may forthwith be returned to the ancient public use and services of the poor, in whose hands soever they be detained."[304] The system of economic security that resulted from the leveling in England was rooted in local political struggle involving some 10,000 parish governments. These local governments were empowered to provide full employment and poor relief.

Historian F. G. Emmison commented on the philosophy of the Civil War reformers, "It was the duty of everyone to work. It was equally the responsibility of the parish to help them get work."[305] Parish governments established a “planned economy” by not only providing employment but job training through the spinning and weaving of wool, fisheries, the establishment of municipal brewhouses, the draining of fens, clearing of wasteland, working up of flax, and the distribution of confiscated royal estates to the landless for farming.[306] The rank and file made it possible that in their senior years they would not have to worry about their necessities.[307]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 60]

Full employment and poor relief programs in the 17th century were part of what historian Derek Hirst has called the philosophy of the "ordered, inter-dependent commonwealth."[308] Liberation theologian Thomas White spoke at the time of full-employment regulations and economic cooperation being part of the natural law:

God and nature have so managed humanity, that none have as much as they desire, but regularly abound in one kind of goods, and want some others which their neighbor has. Hence they mutually assist society to be accommodated with such necessities, as they cannot have but by communication one with another."[309]

White had little use for capitalist monopolies passing themselves off as being in the commonwealth tradition. His twentieth-century counterpart, the Irish-American revolutionary, James Connolly (1870-1916), made the same point:

It is not socialism but capitalism that is opposed to religion; capitalism is social cannibalism, the devouring of man by man, and under capitalism those who have the most of the pious attributes which are required for a truly deeply religious nature are the greatest failures and the heaviest sufferers.

Religion, I hope, is not bound up with a system founded on buying human labor in the cheapest market, and selling its product in the dearest; when the organized socialist working class tramples upon the capitalist class it will not be trampling upon a pillar of God's church but upon a blasphemous defiler of the sanctuary, it will be rescuing the Faith from the impious vermin who made it noisome to the really religious men and women.[310]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 61]

Just as for White and Connolly, also for the present-day biblical scholar Francis Moloney, distributive justice, as made concrete in the evangelical counsels of perfection are the essence of Catholic social doctrine. He observes that the evangelical poverty taught in the Bible and by St. Francis of Assisi, was a vocation to work and to share. It did not involve impoverishment.[311] About the communist nature of this sharing he comments:

All that I have I give to the community, and all that I need I receive from the community. . . This, ultimately, was the sense of Luke’s ideal presentation of the church in his portrait of the apostolic community in the Acts of the Apostles: “There was not a needy person among them.” (Acts, 4:34).[312]

The evangelical poverty of the Civil War Potomac community seems in large measure to have embodied Luke’s ideal.

Just Price. “Just price” was another gentry doctrine for which the Maryland migrants had little regard. Like token almsgiving, "just price" was associated with commutative (individualistic) exchange; it dated back to the classical writers and it ignored labor value. In defending this doctrine, the magnates argued that the just price did not favor the weathy. A just price presumed a free market. Only prices set by a monopolized market would favor the capitalist and this would violate the doctrine. This was Aquinas' point in the following:

In a just exchange the medium does not vary with the social position of the persons involved, but only with regard to the quality of the goods. For instance, whoever buys a thing must pay what the thing is worth whether the person buys from a pauper or from a rich person.[313]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 62]

Aquinas accepted that the "free" market set the price for "what the thing is worth."[314] He insisted only that poor and rich both receive the same market price.

But the free market doctrine in Maryland was rejected. Commutative justice in focusing on the relation of individual to individual ignored the unequal economic position of working people who were forced to pay the same price as the wealthy. The wealthy wet the price by outbidding the working people. It was a system of rationing that gave the capitalist a monopoly. The just price doctrine was acceptable to the gentry because it ignored the class system and viewed the market, as did Aquinas, in terms of narrow individualism. Just price, like token almsgiving, required no substantive reduction in the class system. Barry Gordon comments about Aquinas's just price doctrine:

Aquinas does not confront the issue of the relationship of commutation and distribution. . . There is no guarantee that the achievement of justice in pricing will ensure justice in distribution.[315]

The seventeenth-century liberation theologian Thomas White made the same point in defending collective justice against narrow individualism:

When I see the same person work for a commonwealth, in a free way doing it good, and again for a private person, I see a vast distance between his pretended ends. There is an eminent generosity in one over the other. Whence, I believe it comes that heroes and heroical virtues are chiefly taken in respect of doing good to the whole society.

When I see it thought that good is the same, I find it an intricate labyrinth of equivocation wherein we endless err. To cry the common good is a mere deceit and flattery of words unless we can show that the common good is as great to us as we make it sound.[316]

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 63]

Thomas White and his liberation theology had a following in Maryland. In the early 1640s the Maryland Catholics petitioned him to come join them as their pastor. The Jesuits, who were then serving in Maryland, had come as the result of their dealings with Calvert and were not well regarded by some of the working people. White was popular because, as Robert Pugh, an apologist for the merchants, complained, he took the side of the "meanest of the commons, against the just rights of the king, the nobility, and a great part of the gentry."[317] Another of the gentry, Roger Coke commented that White spoke for those with "plough-holding" hands.[318] White's "socially-minded" theology had small regard for the Thomistic theology of personal devotion, token almsgiving and just price.[319]

The Maryland Catholics regulated their land, corn, tobacco, and other markets to protect themselves from predation. The "just price" unregulated market desired by Calvert, the local landlords and foreign imperialists was a free market only in the sense of the wealthy having freedom to monopolize it for their benefit. Between capital and labor, it was freedom which oppressed and Maryland law which liberated. The Maryland farmers did not allow the free market to become a fetish in which the landlord could stand reality on its head by calling getting rich off the labor of others "paying a just price."[320] The farmers required that labor be the central element in Maryland’s economy. Twentieth-century liberation theology similarly rejected “just price” economics. In Poland, for example, the Pax Association was a Catholic revolutionary organization that fought on the Soviet side in World War II and after their victory replaced "just price" capitalism with a planned, working-class economy. Zygmunt Przetakiewicz (b. 1917), a Pax activist, commented in 1954 on the decadence of Thomistic economics:

[CHAPTER TWO, 2011 ed., p. 64]

Labor, intended by God to become a continuation of the act of creation, was depicted by Aquinas as punishment for the original sin, the value of time was closed within the limits of individual life, societies and nations were disregarded and real existence was acknowledged only in the individual. Religion and social progress were artificially contradicted. Christianity was made to passively accept earthly injustice as a permanent feature of the world.[321]

Conclusion. To sum up, the Maryland Catholics were mainly working people. They established a golden rule in their personal lives and collectively, which was based on hard labor. Their religion reflected the value they placed on labor and their rejection of doctrines the class system and doctrines such as token almsgiving and just price. In Juan Luis Segundo's terms they established God's antinomian reign on earth. Their antinomianism will be taken up in the following chapters.

(Figure omitted)

Figure 2-1: Seventeenth-century trades, including weaving, candle making, fishing with line and net, carpentry, spinning, potting, iron smithing, furniture making, tailoring, printing, plowing and porter.[322]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 65]

Chapter 3

Antinomianism at the Grass-Roots: Agrarian Reform and Subsistence Farming

Maryland's golden rule along the Potomac and its liberation theology grew out of the lives of the laboring people and the value they created. Antinomianism, as noted earlier, meant revolutionary resistance to the landlord doctrine of obedience and was characteristic of the tenantry’s religion and their Basic Christian Communities (BCCs). The Maryland Jesuits complained to their superiors in Europe that the Catholic workers, like the New England Puritans, allowed no rights "except such as can be proved from scripture."[323] This chapter will examine the antinomianism against landlord Calvert and then the struggle against local capitalists and foreign imperialism. From the antinomian perspective, as set forth in the leveler tracts, the liberation from exploitative conditions brought the kingdom of God to earth.[324]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 66]

Agrarian Reform. The "people's liberties," as Cecil Calvert contemptuously called agrarian antinomianism, started in the first place with the workers' decision to abandon Europe. Migration was an agrarian reform. It helped the workers avoid the thievery of the class system: the rent collector, high taxes, low wages, lack of chances, inequality, small yields and trap of low-paying seasonal jobs aimed at keeping the gentry in comfort. Gerrard Winstanley, whose pamphlets circulated in the Chesapeake, summarized the migrants' theology:

This existing [capitalist] law is the extremity of the curse, and yet this is the law that everyone now dotes upon; when the plain truth is, the law of property is the shameful nakedness of humanity, and as far from the law of Christ, as light from darkness.[325]

The doubling of the population in England between 1500-1650, land enclosure, urban growth, and market-oriented farming and manufacturing, had created social crisis. The widespread displacement of the rural population, poverty, vagabondage, unemployment, and economic depression meant that one-quarter to one-half the population was chronically without a job, underfed and without permanent housing.[326]

After their arrival in Maryland the migrants resisted every attempt to re-establish the class system. Their first act upon arrival was to launch a permanent rent strike against obedience to the main landlord. The strike took different forms depending on the arrival status of the worker. About half the Maryland workers paid the £5 transportation costs to America and arrived without debt.[327] Between 1633 and 1641, and from 1649 to 1656, Cecil Calvert, sought to give these workers a "free" 100-acre tract.[328] The problem was that it was not free. Calvert wanted to collect a yearly fee on it called a "quit rent." In addition, his secretary sought to collect a fee of 500 pounds of tobacco for registering (patenting) each 100 acre tract. This was equal to five months labor or £5.[329] By 1642 after almost a decade of settlement, 76% of the farmers entitled to "free land" had refused to accept it.[330]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 67]

The only ones who patented land were the small percentage who themselves had ambitions of being landlords, such as the clergy, the governor, and the secretary. In 1642 four speculators owned 69% of the patented land.[331] These individuals came to regret having claimed the land. It made them susceptible to Calvert's quit rent. For example, Thomas Greene was induced to migrate in the first ship of settlers in return for a 10,000-acre grant from Calvert. According to Greene's calculations, the ten barrels of corn valued at between £15 and £30 he paid yearly in quit rent to Calvert was worth more than the value of the entire tract.[332] In 1639 he was contemplating deserting the province.[333] In a similar situation was Thomas Gerard (1608-1673). He had borrowed £200 from his brother-in-law to obtain a land grant in Maryland. After a life of diligent farming, he died in 1673. The value of his estate came to £242, not much more than his original loan, which he never re-paid.[334]

Thomas Copley, S.J., summarized the problem of would-be-landlords with "headstrong workers" in a 1638 letter:

A payment of one barrel of corn for every one hundred acres of ground yearly is perhaps not very heavy to one who getting a mate and laboring faithfully himself, and taking but one hundred acres, will have no great difficulty to pay it, but to a gentleman, who has a company of headstrong servants who in the beginning especially shall scarcely maintain themselves, this burden will come heavy.[335]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 68]

Squatting. The rent-striking antinominans employed several methods to farm the land without accepting ownership to it from Calvert. One approach was to squat. This was universal during much of the period. In this they shared, as noted earlier, the usufruct land tenure philosophy of the English, Gaelic and American Indian common land system and of other societies then and now committed to a classless economic system.[336] It was because their religion sanctioned such land tenure that Calvert denigrated it.

The farmers collectively protected their squatting rights by refusing to enact a recording statute. In this Maryland differed from Massachusetts, where the general court quickly established a land recording system.[337] As a result, in disputes over land ownership in Massachusetts, the courts gave priority to recorded deeds. In Maryland, a recording act would have opened the squatters to Calvert's revenue demands. The Maryland provincial court consistently held that priority in land disputes did not go to the recorded deed.[338]

It was also in defense of squatting that the assembly refused, as will be studied more closely in Chapter 4, to recognize Calvert's prerogative judicial jurisdiction, crown patent or right to collect fees. In 1641, for example, Calvert sought to legislate a regulation by prerogative decree that would have required squatters to take out a patent within one year of a claim arising or the claims would be lost.[339] But it was impossible for him to enforce the regulation, since the assembly did not recognize it. In January 1648 by unanimous vote except for his nominal governor and secretary, the assembly refused Calvert's request to give a confirmation of his proprietorship and "ordered that the said bill should be thrown out of the house by all the freemen then assembled."[340] Not allowed to use the Maryland courts, Calvert attempted to make those who used public services, be required to take an oath of obedience (fealty) to him. In this oath the taker was supposed to acknowledge Calvert as landlord and promise to pay survey, patent, quitrent, and other fees.[341] The assembly rebuked him, ordering him to stop sending over such proposals: "Experience teaches us that a great occasion is given to much perjury when swearing becomes common. Oaths little prevail upon men of little conscience."[342]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 69]

As a result of their squatter reform, what John Smith (d. 1631) said of Virginia in 1616, also summarized Maryland's classless society, "In the colonies there are no hard landlords to rack us with high rents, nor tedious pleas in law to consume us with their many years disputation for justice. Here every person may be master of their own labor and land."[343] Similarly applicable to Maryland was William Hilton's comment in 1621 about Plymouth plantation, "We are all free-holders, the rent day does not trouble us."[344]

Sharecropping and Wage Labor. Other measures used to avoid Calvert's quit rent, besides squatting, were sharecropping for one of the few local landlords or wage labor. Some migrants did this during their first years in Maryland before setting up on their own. Work for a local landlord was for a "full share" or about £10 pounds per year. This was the same amount the workers could make by farming on their own account. Full-share employees did not work in the fields, but engaged in profitable sidelines. Those with specialized skills did even better. During the 1630s, Maryland carpenters earned wages that were two to three times higher than in England and Ireland, plus food. Historian Garry Stone comments about wage laborers:

Hiring free labor was prohibitively expensive unless Lewger had some profitable sideline requiring labor. Free laborers' wages ranged from 1,000 to 1,500 plus pounds of tobacco a year. In 1642, he hired a laborer with the promise of a cow.[345]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 70]

Among women workers who avoided Calvert's quit rent were Elizabeth Willan and the Irish-born Audrey Daly, who were tailors, the Catholics, Mrs. Fenwick, who ran a public ferry near her house and Katherine Hebden, who worked as a physician during the 1640s and 1650s.[346]

Some younger workers used another type of arrangement to avoid Calvert's rent and fees. They paid 100 pounds of tobacco per year to farm a 100-acre tract that was patented by a local landlord.[347] Such sharecropping avoided property ownership and gave the workers access to tools, know-how and shelter during their first years in Maryland. This was useful as they had much to learn and do initially. Besides growing a crop, they had to build a house, barn, and other outbuildings, and accumulate capital to trade for seed, cooking gear, hardware, tools, cloth, nails, and farm animals. The hardware for a dirt-floored cottage from 10 feet by 10 feet to 15 by 30 feet, depending on size, cost from 60 to 500 pounds of tobacco.[348]

Subsistence Farming. The antinomianism against Calvert's landlordism was also directed against obedience to other foreign imperialists and to would-be local gentry. The key to maintaining their resistance to these enemies was subsistence farming. In self-sufficiently providing their necessities, subsistence farming allowed them to be economically as well as spiritually independent of landlordism. As a result, to the extent they engaged in market farming, it was on their own terms. Labor's idea of subsistence farming had a similar name but an opposite significance from that promoted by 17th-century capitalism. The landlords wanted production by slavery, which meant the physical minimum of subsistence for laboring people or what the economic liberals in the eighteenth century called the iron law of wages.[349]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 71]

The significance of the antinomian subsistence defense can be appreciated by comparing Maryland with other nations and regions. Capitalist forces in Ireland, Latin America, Africa, New England, and in early seventeenth-century Virginia drove farmers to neglect their own nutritional needs or those of their employees and tenants.[350] Ireland's population declined from 1.5 to .9 million between 1641 and 1652 because of famine. This resulted largely because cash crops such as wool production were substituted for food crops.[351]

On a smaller scale many died just north of Maryland in the the mid-1640s at Fort Christiana, which is now Wilmington, Delaware. The New Sweden Trading Company which established the fort in 1637 emphasized pelt trading. It employed one person to grow corn for each eight pelt traders. But in the early period, it required eight corn growers to feed just one pelt trader.[352] Not only to the 17th but to the 21st century, Maryland's subsistence antinomianism was a model of farmer rule. For seventeenth-century working people, capitalism, with its calculated lack of nutrition, sanitation, health care and housing was a system of murder. The liberation theologian, Jose Miranda, in discussing malnutrition comments about capital's profit-driven inherent (structural) violence:

I refer principally to the aggression committed by the capitalist system itself, which is far more evil than that by the police and military. Millions of children die in the world each year from simple malnutrition. And many more are mentally deficient all their lives from the same cause. And many millions of humans have their lifetimes cut in half from the same cause. It is not as if the resources presently existing in the world were inadequate to produce sufficient nutrition for all. What is happening is that capitalism as a system does not permit existing resources to be directed to the satisfaction of needs, because the purpose it imposes upon them is the augmentation of capital.

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 72]

Unless a demand of buying power is foreseen which makes a profit likely, there is no production; but the world's most tragic and urgent needs are without buying power and consequently cannot translate into demand. Capitalism has seized the resources of humanity, and physically kills millions of human beings day-by-day with hunger or leaves them lifelong mental defectives. Would it be more violent to shoot them than to prevent them from eating? Where did this definition of violence come from? The aggression is right here, right now in the form of genocide, and it is constant. The Bible (Gen. 9:6) teaches:

Who spills the people's blood,
by the people will that person's blood be spilled,
for the people were made to God's image.[353]

Among the Maryland Catholics there was no starvation. Some farmers did make the mistake of going into debt, but when the squeeze came, they merely defaulted on their debts. They never lacked for food or other necessities. For example, Giles Brent was not able to pay a debt of 8,000 pounds of tobacco and John Lewger, Calvert's secretary, had to mortgage his farm for 10,000 pounds of tobacco or about £83 to meet his debt to a London capitalist.[354] This meant they were not planting enough tobacco to keep up with their improvident loans, but they were planting enough corn to keep up with their own needs. Between 1638 and 1646 there was an economic depression in Europe and colonial North America. The price for cash crops like tobacco and pelts dropped but the price of imported goods stayed the same or increased. For those dependent on the market system, it meant hardship and bankruptcy. But the Maryland subsistence farmers prospered.[355]

Labor gave collective voice to their subsistence defense through the assembly. They needed strength against Maryland's few landlords who were driven by the capitalist system to maximize their profit by forcing contract workers and tenants to labor entirely for the market and starve nutritionally. The assembly stopped this by enacting corn laws. Corn was Maryland's main food. Assembly codes between 1639 and 1654 required that "Every person planting tobacco shall tend two acres of corn."[356] Each day and each acre spent in corn production was a day and an acre that the landlord could not squeeze tobacco production from contract workers and tenants. The capitalist cleric Thomas Copley complained that the Maryland corn laws were forcing even the clergy into productive labor:

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 73]

It is expected that every head plant two acres of corn, whereas already we find by experience that we cannot possibly employ half our number in planting and therefore we must turn planters ourselves.[357]

In tandem with their minimum planting requirements, the farmers enforced their subsistence defense against local landlordism by outlawing some fundamentals of the free market system, including the exporting grain in times of scarcity, especially during the winter months.[358] It was between October and February when the province was most dependent on corn for its nutritional needs. It was in these months that the best prices and profits could have been gained by speculators selling to Virginia or New England. As in the case of corn planting legislation, there was opposition among the would-be gentry, including Thomas Copley, who wanted to speculate.[359] The corn regulation required that private stores of corn be inspected by officials to prevent hoarding of an amount greater than the necessary sustenance for each household.[360] Rationing, as carried out in the winter of 1647-1648, involved confiscating Calvert's entire supply, despite his objections. The assembly stated, "Since there is a scarcity of corn and since some considerable amount of corn is by diverse persons concealed for their private interests which if it were purchased of the owner and distributed" would end the scarcity, therefore the government "is authorized to view and measure each person's corn."[361]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 74]

Along with grain hoarding, other gentry practices that were outlawed included monopolization and profiteering on day-to-day goods and services. Monopolizing the market in the 17th century was called "engrossing" commodities, and profiteering was called "forestalling" or speculating, that is, buying goods before public sale and later selling them at higher prices.[362] The prohibition on forestalling stated:

It is prohibited for any person to go aboard any vessel wherein are imported goods to be retailed or to treat, deal or give intelligence to or with the skipper, factor or any seaman in any such vessel touching any goods, or the rates or quantity of tobacco or want of goods within the colony before liberty of trade is proclaimed at the fort. Even then there shall be no trade at any higher or greater rate than shall be proclaimed.[363]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 75]

The farmers were particularly vigilant in protecting the subsistence of the weakest members of their class, such as those with alcohol problems. Merchants normally profited from those whose improvident consumption of alcohol made them forget the basic necessities of their family. The assembly limited such profiteering by making debts for wine and "hot waters" subordinate to the claims of other creditors.[364] The main target of this legislation was the London merchant John Smith and his Maryland agent, John Lewger. They exported liquor valued at £100 to Maryland in 1639. This was equal in value to 10% of Maryland's gross tobacco production, which amounted to between £800 and £1,200 per year.[365] The subordination of liquor debts made it impossible to collect them. Liquor-speculator Lewger had to mortgage his farm to pay back his London partner.

In more recent years working people in Poland enacted similar restrictions to protect again predation. Helping to achieve these measures in the 1940s and 1950s was the 500 member Polish Patriotic Priests Committee, which was part of the 650,000 strong Association of Fighters for Freedom and Democracy (Zwiazek Bojownikow o Wolnose i Demokracje, ZBoWiD), a World War II partisans' and army veterans' organization.[366] The Patriotic Priests petitioned for a papal encyclical that would support communism and condemn the market system.[367] In their pulpits they preached against Polish capitalism for seeking decentralization of the economy, consumer goods, only a moderate rate of investment, corporate agriculture, the expansion of economic ties with capitalist nations and the minimization of ties to communist nations.[368]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 76]

Dealing on Labor's Terms. Subsistence farming allowed the antinomians, to the extent they dealt with the market system, as in tobacco and pelt trading, to do so on their own terms. Their success in this was acknowledged in 1642 by the biggest monopolist in England, Charles I, who complained that the Chesapeake farmers were "constraining merchants to take tobacco at any price, in exchange for their wares."[369] The Catholics engaged in the tobacco trade on their own terms through tobacco regulations. Notable was the legislation enacted by the fourth assembly in October 1640, which established an inspection system to destroy "bad tobacco" and limit production in order to increase the price paid to the farmer. Bad tobacco, which had a market in good times, was defined as "ground leaves, second crops, leaves notably bruised, or worm eaten, or leaves sun burnt, frost bitten, or weather beaten."[370] Another type of legislation reduced the cost of shipping by increasing the standard size of the hogshead in which tobacco was transported to Europe. The standard weight in 1640 was 250 pounds. By 1660 it was nearing 400 pounds.[371]

The Crown, London capitalists and shipowners protested Maryland's tobacco regulations. Imperialism wanted maximum volume, because custom taxes and freight revenue were dependent on this.[372] Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, who loaned Calvert £500 in 1639, was typical of those hurt by the regulation.[373] Wentworth was the place-seeker discussed in the last chapter who was lord deputy and then lord lieutenant of Ireland. His tobacco policy in Ireland was to flood the market, which meant maximum importation from Maryland and elsewhere.[374] By doing this he maximized his personal income. He owned the custom farm for Ireland starting in 1637. All of the tobacco imported into Ireland passed through his custom house at the port of Kinsale. He charged a per pound custom duty of 1s/6d and an impost tax of 6d.[375] The price of tobacco to the Irish consumer was 2s/4d per pound.[376] Between 1637 and 1640 the value of tobacco imported was £80,000.[377] In a remonstrance Wentworth was accused by the Irish House of Commons of "uttering tobacco at high prices" so that "thousands of families in Ireland and the colonies were utterly destroyed."[378]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 77]

In regulating tobacco to obtain a more honest return on their labor, the Maryland Catholics established a tradition for future tobacco antinomianism. In 1682 the Virginia workers took the law into their own hands and rioted after the Virginia legislature, dominated by merchants, failed to enact tobacco regulations. The riot included the establishment of grass-roots regulations that required the destruction of three-fourths of the Virginia tobacco crop.[379]

The independence which their subsistence farming gave them from the market allowed Maryland farmers to also deal with the pelt trade on their own terms. This was a lucrative industry in the early years.[380] Both in prerogative proclamations, in the proposed codes which he sent, and in the various wars which he sought to wage against the Susquehannock, Calvert claimed the right to monopolize the pelt market for his own benefit.[381] The assembly code in 1638 outlawed Calvert's attempt to "rake out of mens necessities" by "confirming the trade with the Indians for all commodities to be exported."[382] Maryland farmers each bought two or three pelts per year from the Indians and resold them to trading ships. Such trade brought £2 or £3 of additional yearly income. The New England population similarly refused to permit a pelt monopoly to the magnates there.[383]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 78]

Labor Reform. Along with subsistence farming, the migrants used antinomian labor reforms to inhibit local and merchant predation. The second largest group of migrants in Maryland after those who arrived with no debt were contract workers. They did not have the money to pay for their passage. They made an indenture or contract with the local landlords. They were mainly teenagers. In exchange for their passage and other benefits, they agreed to work for the landlord until adulthood. Between 1634 and 1639, but not afterwards, a majority of the Maryland population were contract workers.[384]

The antinomian beliefs of these young migrants about obedience to their contracts was frequently manifested. Given the monopoly on transportation held by the merchants, the contracts were the only way those without funds could migrate. Once in Maryland, large numbers of workers made self-help labor reforms by unilaterally ending or modifying their contracts. They ran off to live in nearby Indian villages or in Virginia, New York, Delaware, New England, the Caribbean or back to England. They rejected landlord attempts to impose a feudal system in which migrants would have been prohibited from leaving Maryland. The assembly took the side of the workers in refusing to enact legislation proposed by Calvert that would have made it illegal for tenants and workers to leave the province without the governor's permission.[385] Historian Eugene McCormac writes that running away was characteristic of contract workers and that it cut into profits:

One of the most noticeable features of indentured servants, and one which greatly impeded the successful operation of the institution, was the large number of runaways. There is abundant evidence that large numbers of servants deserted the service of their masters.[386]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 79]

Those who did not end their contracts by running away used other forms of rebellion against obedience to the local landlords. This included laziness, feigned sickness, theft, refusal to work, breaking and losing tools, mistreating and maiming animals, fighting, arson, alcohol abuse, murder, vexatious lawsuits, and suicide.[387] The Catholic Thomas Allen in 1648 abused two Irish contract workers, Nick and Mark. Allen made a will in April of that year stating that if he died unexpectedly to suspect the pair. Later that year Allen's body washed up on shore at Point Look Out with three holes under the right shoulder and a broken skull.[388] Historian Abbott Smith in his study of Maryland's contract workers, referred to them as "at best irresponsible, lazy, and ungoverned, and at worse frankly criminal in character."[389] Another writer commented similarly that contract workers were "unruly and difficult to discipline."[390]

Contract workers in the other English colonies and in England also showed antinomian views about obedience to employers. At St. Kitts and Nevis, they betrayed their employers to Spanish fleets; those in Barbados staged an island-wide rebellion.[391] Timothy Nourse wrote of the "pride" held by the contract workers whom he encountered, "There is not a more insolent and proud, a more intractable, perfidious, and a more churlish sort of people breathing, than the generality of our servants."[392] Historians Richard Dunn and Warren Billings remark on the tendency among contract workers in Virginia to be lazy and rebellious. Dunn finds the laboring people were not opposed to labor but disliked not receiving the fruit of their labor, "They worked unwillingly because they could see no personal gain in their work."[393] Timothy Breen argues that the militancy of the Tidewater farmers at the time of the American Revolution was related to their fear of losing their personal autonomy because of debt to the London creditors.[394] Their seventeenth-century ancestors had similar sentiments.

Arguably, it was because laboring people knew their value and resisted exploitation that the French in establishing settlements in Canada had the home government pay the passage and subsidize laboring people in their farming.[395] In eighteenth-century South Carolina, the provincial government also paid the passage for migrants and subsidized their farming.[396]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 80]

Out of the regard for their own value came the antinomian support of contract workers for the leveling of Calvert and the local Maryland landlords in the 1640s and 1650s, which will be taken up in the next chapter. Tenants and contract workers were only 20% of the population in this period, but they led in the leveling. Catholic tenants William Lewis, Henry Hooper, and Robert Percy became squatters and stopped paying the three barrels of corn in annual rent on their 21-year leases.[397] Catholic worker Elena Stephenson ran off from her employer.[398] Some contract workers and tenants divided up their landlords' cattle, tools, grain, and household goods for their own use.[399] In the 1640s some 200 head of cattle were expropriated by the tenantry. Each was worth a full years labor to those who took them. Years later landlords were still trying to reclaim cattle from those who had changed the markings on them.[400]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 81]

Contracting on Labor's Terms. Because antinomianism dominated early Maryland, labor contracts were generally on terms favorable to the workers. Adding to the migrant belief in the value of their labor, was that their initial years in America were dangerous from the medical perspective. One-third of the population died within the first several years of arrival because of sicknesses like malaria, dysentery and cholorea.[401] Having an established source of food, clothing, shelter and medical care, as demanded by the labor contracts was necessary to maximize chances at survival. When written contracts were inadequate or non-existent, the workers had unwritten contracts, called “customs of the country." These contracts required that they be given land in order to plant their own crops and raise their own pigs, calves, and other farm animals, which they kept at the end of their employment.[402] The customary contracts, which were enforced by the court, also required the employer at the end of the employment to give the worker 50 acres of land, five of which were cultivated, along with clothes and tools.[403] Such concessions were made by landlords to induce workers not to unilaterally terminate their contracts.

Contracting on labor’s terms not only meant adequate food and similar benefits, but freedom from laboring for the landlord on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and about forty feast days.[404] Saturday afternoons and Sundays were the days contract workers customarily tended to their own crops, as well as to hunting, fowling, fishing, militia drills and spiritual and social needs. Contract workers were members of the militia. They had to be provided with arms and periodic training at the expense of the employer.[405]

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 82]

Women contract workers appear to have been treated equally with men.[406] Equal treatment began with the assembly code which enforced the right of women to contract in the first place and included a guarantee for the payment of their Atlantic passage, initial maintenance, and the granting of head rights and freedom dues. The code added to the freedom dues given to men a new petty coat, a pair of new stockings, waist coat, a new smock, a pair of new shoes, as well as a hilling hoe, weeding hoe, falling ax, new cloth suit, new monmouth cap, and a years provision (3 barrels) of corn.[407] Some contracts also gave women the right to an education, as in the case of Mary Howell, daughter of Blanch and Humphrey Howell. Her parents contracted on August 8, 1648 for her to serve Thomas Copley, S.J. for 10 years in exchange for an education, as well as for food, clothing, and other customary benefits.[408]

During the depression in tobacco and other farm prices between 1636 and 1645, the local landlords complained that it cost more to maintain workers than the value that they produced in cash crops.[409] By 1642 the number of contract workers had dropped to between 13 and 37 percent of the total population, depending on how one calculates it.[410] Few contract workers were brought in after 1638 because it was unprofitable. The local landlords were reduced to asking their former contract workers to stay on to work for full shares of the tobacco and corn crops. In return, the tenants would help with the other chores.

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 83]

Most contract workers established their own farms within a short time after reaching adulthood. Like those who arrived with no debt, they squatted. They had no belief in permanent employment under a landlord. Russell Menard wrote of them, "Men who had arrived without capital were establishing households with ease. Twenty to twenty-five men who arrived in Maryland as indentured workers or poor migrants had become freeholders by 1642."[411] By 1652 74% (16 out of 25) of the former Catholic contract workers were farming for their own account.[412]

Conclusion. In the introduction to this study, the gentry’s testing-ground, virtue-of-suffering theology was discussed. In this theology, labor was supposed to have no hope of making life decent. It was the working people, not the world promoted by the gentry, that was being tested.[413] Maryland’s migrants, however, had contempt for such self-serving theology. The only testing and suffering in Maryland was that which they imposed on the landlords.

[CHAPTER THREE, 2011 ed., p. 84]

The Maryland Catholics, like the levelers in England, did not spell out a communist theory about abolishing property rights but their activity was to distribute property to those whose work had produced it. They saw no virtue in suffering from capitalist theft. The English levelers complained that they were "levelers, falsely so called."[414] One pamphlet stated, "We profess we never had it in our thoughts to level men's estates, it being the utmost of our aim that the commonwealth be reduced to such a pass that every man may with as much security as may be enjoy his property."[415] A. L. Morton points out that at the time laboring people saw the small property of the workers menaced "not by the poor but by the rich -- by monopolists, greedy entrepreneurs, and enclosing landlords."[416] It was against these that security was needed. The levelers represented and appealed in the main to the working class. The same concerns stood behind Maryland's defense of its golden rule. It was Calvert that threatened property rights and imperialism that leveled working people.

Just as the levelers were on the side of security for working class property, they were likewise on the side of obedience when it came to working class authority. In more recent times, the biblical scholar Francis Moloney, in his study of the evangelical counsels of perfection (poverty, chastity and obedience) makes the same point. Evangelical obedience entails obedience to God’s reign, but resistance to that which obstructs this reign. About evangelical obedience Moloney summarizes:

Religious obedience, lived out in the heart of the Church, is the obedience of a prophet. We must be seen as living under the divine urgency to go away from ourselves, and to lose ourselves in the mysterious plan of a mysterious God. In this way we will continue to proclaim to the people among whom we live, the freedom which a radical openness to God can create. We will also act as a thorn in the side of an over-confident, over-organized, over-institutionalized Church. The quality of our free but obedient lives must keep posing the question to our Church: Just why were you—the Institution—instituted in the first place?[417]

(Figure omitted)

Figure 3-1: An engraving showing the leveling of Wardour Castle, which was owned by Cecil Calvert's landlord in-laws.[418]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 85]

Chapter 4

Collective Antinomianism: Labor's Golden Governmental Rule

The labor theory of value is at the heart of liberation theology. The Maryland assembly spent much of its time defending the labor value of the migrants. Its antinomian activities reflected collectively what the workers were doing individually. The Crown, Calvert and the would-be landlords in Maryland, Virginia and England wanted acquiescence to the institutionalized theft of the labor value. The Maryland antinomians, however, waged, in Juan Luis Segundo's words, "a terrible conflict" to maintain their "classless society."

Despite capital's claims to the contrary, the migrants were not anarchists. They merely looked at obedience from a class perspective. They were faithful to the essence of the Mosaic law - its political and moral content - but cleared the way for its realization, which the gentry prevented. God wanted no obedience to a system that robbed workers for the comfort of landlords. Historian Christopher Hill described the monopolistic nature of the English economy:

A typical English family lived in a house built with monopoly bricks, heated by monopoly coal. Their clothes were held up by monopoly belts, monopoly buttons, and monopoly pins. They ate monopoly butter, monopoly currants, monopoly herrings, monopoly salmon, and monopoly lobsters.[419]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 86]

A Parliamentary Model. Maryland’s revolutionary government established by the Catholics in the 1630s anticipated the antinomian reforms made by the English Parliament in the 1640s and 1650s. From the beginning Maryland's assembly, judiciary and tax system established themselves as a law unto themselves, the exclusive law in Maryland, above the Crown and its charter, which had given them no right to initiate legislation.[420] In 1638 the assembly enacted a forty-two law code. The proprietor, Cecil Calvert, who never set foot in America, sent over that year from England his own twelve-law landlord code. The assembly, which was little more than a town meeting, ignored it.[421] If the assembly was like the village assemblies in England and New England, the women as well as men had a voice.[422] It was not unusual to hear antinomian women during the Civil War speak of themselves as being "above the apostles." George Fox used an antinomian argument to make the same point, "If you be led of the spirit, then you are not under the law."[423]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 87]

In most of the assemblies during the Civil War period, Calvert proposed legislation, which was voted down or, more frequently, ignored. In the third assembly of March 1639, the Catholics, who had an absolute majority, rejected several of Calvert's proposed laws.[424] In the first session of the fourth assembly in October 1640, ten bills proposed by Calvert were voted down.[425] Among the rejected bills were those that would have provided for the "Proprietor's Prerogatives," that is, for his landlord rights.[426] Similarly, in the second session of the fourth assembly on August 12, 1641, the migrants refused the "confirmation of his lordship's patent," which meant they rejected his claim to being a landlord and his right to collect rent.[427] Such legislation reflected Maryland’s chronic rent strike.

The Catholics' belief about being a law unto themselves was expressed in a letter which the 11th assembly sent to Calvert in April 1649. This was at the same time that Calvert was attacking the migrants for their atheism, "pretended religion" and care for the "people's liberties." The assembly's letter was inspired by Parliament's execution of Charles I on January 30, 1649: "We request your lordship hereafter to send us no more such bodies of laws which serve little other end than to fill our heads with suspicious jealousies and dislikes."[428] Like the English antinomians, they went on to inform him that they rejected his use of the terms "absolute lord and proprietary," and "royal jurisdiction."[429]

The farmers’ belief in their right to establish a golden rule by initiating their own legal codes included various collateral rights that had counterparts in Parliament and in the British county and parish governments. One collateral right involved the calling of assemblies. Cecil Calvert, like the Crown, wanted to have the sole right to call assemblies.[430] The Crown in the 1630s had ruled without Parliament simply by not calling a parliament. One of the reforms, which the Long Parliament enacted on May 10, 1641, was the Triennial Act.[431] It required a parliament to meet at least every three years. Several years prior to the Parliamentary Triennial Act, the Maryland assembly in 1639 had shown Parliament the way by enacting a provision that its code would lapse after three years.[432] This necessitated an assembly at least every three years. The fifth Maryland assembly in March 1642 repeated the language of the parliamentary Triennial Act in declaring, "the house of assembly may not be adjourned or prorogued but by and with the consent of the house."[433]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 88]

Another of the antinomian liberties in which the assembly led the way for Parliament was in restricting those receiving Calvert's patronage from interference in its deliberations. The sixth assembly of July 1642 proposed, and the ninth assembly of 1646 and twelfth assembly of 1650, enacted legislation that required a separate house for elected representatives.[434] This kept the nominal governor, secretary, and councilors who were on Calvert's patronage and who were not elected, from having a vote in the farmers’ assembly. The twelfth assembly added an oath of secrecy, which further insulated the assembly deliberations from Calvert and his agents.[435] It was not until 1649 that Parliament took similar action by abolishing the House of Lords to prevent that non-elected body from interfering with the legislative process.

The Golden Rule and The Royalists' "Time of Troubles" (1644-1646). The Maryland antinomians had to defend their rule from multiple counterrevolutionary military assaults during the 1640s and 1650s, not unlike the Cuban communists over the past 40 years. One assault came from the Royalists - Calvert, the Crown, and their Virginia allies between 1644 and 1646. In July 1643, the Royalists secured the port of Bristol, which became a rival to the port of London. By November 1643 Calvert took up residence at Bristol.[436] In January 1644, he went to Oxford, where the Crown, the royal parliament and its military forces had taken refuge from the army of the London parliament.

At Oxford Calvert obtained a commission from Charles I to turn Maryland into a royalist monopoly. It was not loyalty to the Crown that promoted Calvert to obtain the commission. He switched sides several times during the Civil War. What Calvert wanted was the Crown's help in overthrowing Maryland's antinomian government. Calvert proposed to construct military fortifications and custom houses in the Chesapeake, to establish a royalist armed force, and along with the royalist Virginia governor, William Berkeley, to overthrow labor's golden rule and to seize all ships, goods, and debts belonging to any person in rebellion. The estates of those who resisted were to be plundered. One-half of all seized property was to go to the king and Calvert was to receive part of the customs revenue.[437]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 89]

For several years prior to Calvert's royal commission of 1644, the Crown itself had been plotting to shut down the economic support which the "impious" Maryland workers had been giving to the rebels and their "unnatural war." The Crown had complained that "Our rebellious subjects of the city of London drive a great trade" in the Chesapeake, "receiving daily great advantage from thence which they impiously spend in vast contributions towards the maintenance of an unnatural war against us."[438]

After obtaining his royal commission in January 1644, Calvert sought to have his nominal governor limit trade exclusively to Bristol's ships. He wanted parliamentary-aligned London ships to be seized and brought back to Bristol as prizes.[439] When the Maryland workers learned in the Fall of 1644 of Calvert's counter-revolutionary coalition with the Crown against their government, they denounced it. A deposition described the assembly's action and the leading role of several Catholics:

Mr. Calvert [the governor] had a commission from the king. . . The first assembly after [Leonard] Calvert's arrival declared they would have free trade with Londoners and others under the protection of Parliament and that they would not receive any commission to the contrary and thus Copley or Giles Brent or one of them did write a letter to Ingle from Calvert telling him of the good affection of the inhabitants of Maryland to the Parliament and their desire of free trade with Ingle or other Londoners. Thomas Cornwallis also wrote a letter to Ingle as aforesaid which letters are in the possession of Richard Ingle or John Durford.[440]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 90]

In obtaining the royal commission, Calvert expected the royalist Virginia governor's help in mounting the attack against Maryland. Matthew Andrews writes about the visit of Calvert's governor to Virginia in late 1644 in connection with the commission:

Governor Leonard Calvert had gone to Virginia in order either to come to some eclaircissement or to apply to the government of Virginia, which was still opposed to the Parliamentarians, for its interference on behalf of his province.[441]

However, before he could obtain military help from the Virginia Royalists, the Maryland revolutionaries on February 13, 1645 turned Calvert's plan upside-down by aligning with the Virginia Parliamentarians to level Calvert's nominal governor and the local landlords. Four years prior to the execution of Charles I and the establishment of the English republic, the Maryland Catholics showed Parliament the way. Calvert's governor spent two years in exile with the Royalists in Virginia. The leveling in Maryland was helped by Richard Ingle, a London ship captain.[442] Only three Catholics, two of whom were under his patronage, came to Calvert's defense at the time of the leveling.[443]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 91]

The great majority of what Stephen Crow called the "disgruntled Catholics" joined in the leveling.[444] Of the eleven Maryland levelers known by name, four were Catholic and only one was Protestant.[445] That not only the four documented Catholics but the entire Catholic population were levelers was indicated by Calvert in December 1646. At that point he was trying to restore his nominal governor, and he offered a general pardon to the entire population, including the Catholics, "for their former rebellion."[446] Not much later Calvert called "atheistic" the liberation theology of the Catholic revolutionaries.

During the 1644-1646 period, most of Maryland’s local landlords, both Protestant and Catholic, received the same leveling treatment given to Calvert. For example, Thomas Cornwallis was expropriated by his sixteen indentured workers, including four Africans, and his debtors.[447] Thomas Harrison, a cooper, was one of Cornwallis's workers with five years to run on his indenture. He took his contract from Cornwallis's house and destroyed it.[448] One account stated that "account books, bills, notes, and papers were always destroyed, whether they belonged to Giles Brent, Cornwallis, Thomas Copley, the Speagle, or others."[449] Such leveling was common, as was seen in Chapter 1, in England against the royalist and parliamentary capitalists, including Cecil Calvert himself. Another of the Maryland landlords who was reduced to nothing was Thomas Gerard. His tenants, some or all of whom were Catholic, took the occasion to stop paying rent on their 21-year leases.[450]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 92]

In the 1644-1646 period, the thirty known Catholic members and leaders of Maryland's seven militia districts, along with their Protestant counterparts, prevented Calvert from re-establishing his governor.[451] While Calvert and the Royalists called it a "time of troubles," it was a time of prosperity for Maryland workers. Because of the leveling and the Dutch trade, there was a boom in tobacco prices and tobacco production beginning in 1645.[452] There was no grain shortage. The workers planted their crops. The province was not laid waste. The assembly met as usual in February, March, and December 1646 with a majority of the delegates with known religion being Catholics.[453] When Calvert's nominal governor finally returned to Maryland in December 1646, it was not with the aid of Catholics but with the protection of mercenaries hired in Virginia and led by a Presbyterian, Richard Bennett. The mercenaries had an agreement with Calvert that they would plunder the Catholics and Protestants if there was resistance.[454]

Parliamentary Rage and Fury: 1650s. Maryland's antinomians collectively defended themselves against military aggression both from Calvert and the Crown in the 1640s, and later from Parliament and the London magnates in the 1650s. Like Calvert and the Crown, Parliament sought to establish a monopoly on Maryland's trade from the first year of settlement. In response the Maryland workers linked with the Dutch and literally sent the London merchants begging. There were instances when London ships had to return empty to England because there was no cargo for them.[455] George Goring (1583-1663), who owned the custom farm on tobacco was bitter against the Maryland farmers. He wanted all Maryland tobacco to be landed in London and pass through his hands.[456] The London capitalists had been in opposition to the Dutch in the Chesapeake from Maryland's original establishment. The Seven United Provinces of the Free Netherlands was the leading maritime power in the first-half of the 17th century and handled much of the shipping to the English settlements in the Chesapeake throughout the 17th century.[457]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 93]

The original reason the Crown had granted the Maryland charter to Calvert in 1634 was to prevent further Dutch encroachment between Virginia and New England.[458] London’s merchants were also behind monopolistic parliamentary and crown measures, such as prohibitions on "trucking for merchandise whatsoever with any ship other than his majesty's subjects," which were issued with regularity, as in 1635, 1642, 1650, and 1651.[459] On July 22, 1643 Parliament made an ordinance establishing a duty or "excise" of 2s on each pound of tobacco brought into England but suspended it as long as the particular settlement traded only with English ships.[460] During the war, the London merchants were also responsible for the Navigation Acts of 1650 and 1651 and for a war waged against the Dutch from 1652 to 1654.[461] London customs farmers Abraham Dawes and John Wolsterholme and the merchant Maurice Thompson obtained parliamentary permission to attack Dutch shipping in 1644.[462]

At the same time Parliament was prohibiting the Dutch trade, Maryland's revolutionary assembly was sanctioning it. the Catholic Edward Packer and the Protestant Henry Fleet on July 17, 1644 were given a commission by the assembly to trade with the Dutch.[463] This was because the Dutch gave better prices than the English for tobacco. The Dutch had larger ships and cheaper transportation charges. This drove up the cost and lowered the profit for the British merchants.[464] Typical of London's hatred against the Dutch trade was Richard Ingle, the London ship captain, who later aided in the leveling of Calvert. On arriving in Maryland on Dec. 29, 1644, he heard of Dutch ships doing trade in Maryland. "In a rage and fury" he immediately set sail for Virginia.[465] A contemporary described it:

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 94]

I had heard that Ingle arrived in Maryland on Dec. 29, 1644, and hearing of a Dutch ship there trading in the port, then did in a rage and fury without license of the governor thereupon presently sail back to Virginia, but why I do not know. I was told about this by one of the passengers then on board Ingle's ship.[466]

Despite opposition from both the Royalists and Parliamentarians, Maryland's trade with the Dutch expanded during the Civil War period. In the 1650s, this required the Maryland farmers to make war against the parliamentary merchants to defend their trade. London had employed Richard Bennett, a Virginia mercenary, to make war on the Dutch trade. Earlier Bennett, at Calvert's request, had led 300 Presbyterian families to migrate from the Nansemond River area of Virginia to what is now Annapolis. Calvert hoped the Presbyterians would subvert the antinomian government at St. Mary's. The Presbyterians had been dissatisfied in Virginia because the royalist governor there had forced their clergy to exit the province and otherwise raised a "persecution" against them. The new community in Northern Maryland formed itself into a county, Anne Arundell in 1650.[467]

In 1652 Richard Bennett led a coup d'etat against the royalist governor in Virginia and named himself to that office. He then helped in the bloodless overthrow of the Maryland governor. It turned out the Annapolis community no less than the St. Mary's community objected to Calvert's claims for land fees, quit rents and loyalty oaths.[468] William Stone (1603-1660) and Thomas Hatton (d. 1655) who had been employed in 1648 by Calvert as his governor and secretary, retained their positions after Bennett's coup, but they functioned as a sub-district of Virginia, not as Calvert's agents. Both Stone and Hutton were Virginia Protestants with ties to the parliamentary merchants.[469] Calvert by 1648 had sided with Parliament with hopes of overthrowing the Maryland farmers.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 95]

Liberation theology taught the farmers to have no loyalty to Calvert but rather supported taking up arms against him in the 1640s. It should be no surprise that Catholics were also a part of the 13th assembly of June 24-28, 1652, which supported Bennett's overthrow of Calvert.[470] Nevertheless, in 1655 after Bennett attempted to enforce the ban desired by Parliament on trade with the Dutch, the Catholics again revolted.[471] Maryland was shipping most of its tobacco to Holland, not to England. During the Anglo-Dutch War between 1652 and 1654, the assembly sided with the Dutch. Because of their rejection of Parliament and the London merchants, Bennett attempted to exclude Catholics from the Maryland assembly in 1654.[472] As a result in 1655 the southern Maryland farmers took up arms against Annapolis to stop its interference with their Dutch trade.[473]

An armed struggle was also waged by Northampton County on Virginia's eastern shore against Bennett for the same reason. Northampton, which was a neighbor to southern Maryland, stopped sending delegates and paying taxes to the Virginia House of Burgesses in the 1650s.[474] Massachusetts in a similar manner defended itself against interference with the Dutch trade in its harbors.[475] The Massachusetts legislature as early as November 4, 1646, had declared it owed to Parliament the same allegiance as the free Hanse Towns rended to the Empire, that is, no allegiance. The Massachusetts legislature made death the penalty for any who asserted the supremacy of the English Parliament.[476]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 96]

Antinomian Judiciary. As in the assembly, Maryland's liberation theology supported the Catholics in using their judiciary against the theft of their labor value. Calvert's charter from the Crown purported to grant him an exclusive right to establish courts.[477] Courts established by the executive were called prerogative courts and were one of the institutions abolished in England during the Civil War reforms.[478] A prerogative court was one of the provisions in the code of laws which Calvert sent over in 1638 and which the assembly rejected. Calvert's nominal governor and secretary from time to time throughout the period unsuccessfully attempted to exercise a prerogative judicial power.[479]

Beginning with its first meetings, the Maryland assembly authored a judiciary act establishing a worker's provincial court which became a law unto itself. The judiciary act was renewed in the third assembly of 1639 and in later assemblies.[480] The provincial court took full jurisdiction in testamentary and other civil matters, as well as in criminal, ecclesiastical, maritime, and equity cases. It provided for the incorporation of English common law and usages, including the jury system. The people maintained ultimate control over the judiciary by having the assembly act as a trial court in important cases.[481] They also maintained their domination over the judges, sheriff, secretary and other public officials by controlling their fees.[482] The provincial court was similar to but had more jurisdiction than the quarter sessions county courts in England.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 97]

Illustrative of the agrarians control of the judiciary was the fourth assembly in October 1640. This assembly which included six Catholics, voted down a bill proposed by Calvert to authorize the appeal of court cases to himself.[483] Instead the assembly enacted several judicial measures of its own.[484] The antinomian nature of the judiciary can be seen in several cases brought against Calvert by Maryland workers. In January 1645 the Catholic Giles Brent, who was then the judge, granted a judgment against Calvert and his governor in a case involving the large sum of 100,000 pounds of tobacco or £200. The governor called this judicial leveling "a crime against the dignity and dominion of the right honorable the lord proprietor of this province."[485]

Calvert lost an even larger amount when the "atheistic" assembly, as Calvert called it, refused to allow him to assert his fundamental landlord right to use the provincial court to attach the property of squatters in order to force them to pay rent. The assembly provided just the opposite: "no attachment is allowed on goods or chattels of any inhabitant of the province except when the true owner [that is, Calvert] is not resident or dwelling in the province."[486] This allowed Calvert's property to be attached by the Maryland residents, since he did not dwell in Maryland, but not the property of the residents. Calvert complained on hearing of the legislation, "We be less master of our estate than the meanest planter there."[487]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 98]

Another major case in which the revolutionaries used the judiciary to maintain their golden rule began on January 18, 1644. As noted earlier Calvert at this point was siding with the Royalists and had a commission to overthrow the farmers’ government. In forwarding his scheme, his governor in January 1644 attempted to arrest the ship captain Richard Ingle. Ingle had been in Maryland carrying on trading activities. The agrarians’ loyalty was to themselves. This meant trading with whoever gave the best return: Parliament, Crown or Dutch. Within a day of the governor's arrest of Ingle, the Maryland agrarians freed him in defiance of the Crown. Three of the known liberators were Catholic. According to Calvert's secretary, they were on the side which was in "high treason to his majesty."[488] The governor, along with the royalist Protestant William Hardidge, then brought charges in the provincial court of treason, jail break, piracy, mutiny, trespass, contempt, and misdemeanors against Ingle, who was still trading in Maryland.[489] Seven successive juries requested by the governor refused to return an indictment.[490] The migrants had no loyalty to the Crown or Calvert.[491]

Taxation. Like the assembly and judiciary, Maryland's tax policy was part of labor's defense against the theft of their surplus value. In England tax policy was a long-standing area of contention. In the 1620s, Parliament had been adamant in refusing to enact revenue measures desired by the Crown. As a result, the Crown ruled without Parliament in the 1630s and levied illegal taxes.[492] Against these taxes the Catholic playwright Philip Massinger (d. 1640) protested in his play The King and the Subject (1636), which the Crown called "insolent" and refused to license. The following lines were put into the tyrannical king's mouth:

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 99]

Money? We'le raise supplies what way we please,
And force you to subscribe to the blanks, in which
We'le mulct you as we shall think fit. The Caesars
In Rome were wise, acknowledging no laws
But what their swords did ratify.[493]

The illegal taxes hurt working people but those in the court party, including the proprietor's father, enjoyed crown patronage. They profited from and supported the illegal taxation.

The Maryland Catholics were among those hurt by crown taxation. Chesapeake tobacco was squeezed by a 2d crown tax on each pound of tobacco imported into England in the 1630s.[494] At £150,000 per year, the custom revenue was the Crown's largest source of income. The tax raised the tobacco prices in England and cut sales. The large size of the tax can be appreciated when it is considered that farmers were receiving a market price of as little as 3d per pound. When Parliament took charge of revenue collection in the 1640s and made a combination property and poll tax the main source of revenue, the port duty was reduced to 1d.[495]

Because the Crown's tax schemes were unpopular in Maryland, Cecil Calvert did not even suggest extending the "Catholic Collection of 1639" to the province. This was a revenue effort to raise funds without Parliament's consent for the Northern War against the Scots. Cecil Calvert was one of 149 English Catholic gentry who served on the national committee which took up a collection within the Catholic community. He was co-chair for the collection committee in his county of Wiltshire.[496] His failure to extend the collection to Maryland contrasted with that of his colleague, Thomas Wentworth. As deputy lieutenant in Ireland at the time, Wentworth obtained a tax of £180,000 from the Catholics there for the 1639 war.[497]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 100]

As in England, the greatest Maryland tax expenditure was for the defense budget. To the extent the Crown raised revenue it carried on illegal imperialist wars against its rivals. In contrast the Maryland farmers used their leveling tax policy to stop Calvert's war against his commercial rivals. The assembly kept defense expenditures low by repeatedly rejecting Calvert's requests in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh assemblies that a military campaign be mounted against the Susquehannock Indians who resided to the north of the province.[498] As noted earlier Calvert claimed and wanted to enforce an exclusive right to the lucrative pelt monopoly.[499] He did not want the Susquehannock to deal with the Virginians, Dutch, and Swedes. The unsympathetic Catholics replied to Calvert's imperialist designs that "military decisions are not to be left to the discretion of the governor and council," that is, those dependent on Calvert's patronage.[500] When Calvert claimed the charter gave him the power to wage war, the assembly responded by asking "to have the patent to peruse."[501] In the end it was against Calvert that the assembly waged war.

The rejection of poll taxes was another of Maryland's leveling tax policies. In 1642 the English Parliament replaced the poll tax, that is, a type of income tax on each person, with an assessment or property tax, which fell only on landlords. The poll tax was always unpopular with laboring people because it fell on them rather than on the landlords.[502] Wat Tyler, a tiler of Essex, and a communist priest, John Bull, had helped lead a peasant revolt in 1381 against the poll-income tax, which resulted in its abolition for 200 years.[503] Illustrative of John Bull's liberation theology was the following in which he attacked the class system that promoted the tax:

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 101]

Good people, things cannot go right in England and never will, until goods are held in common and there are no more villeins and gentlefolk, but we are all one and the same. In what way are those whom we call lords greater masters than ourselves? How have they deserved it? Why do they hold us in bondage? If we all spring from a single father and mother, Adam and Eve, how can they claim or prove that they are lords more than us, except by making us produce and grow the wealth which they spend.[504]

In England during 1639 and 1640 there was a general refusal to pay the poll tax, which undermined the Crown's warmaking in the north.[505]

However, in Maryland from the beginning the poll tax was rejected. Each head of household was taxed, not each poll. This put the burden on landlords.[506] As historian Edgar Johnson states, Maryland's revenue scheme in effect was a property tax, because it was placed on the number of workers in a landlord's household and because it was made proportional to the amount of land a person owned.[507] Unlike Maryland and New England, which used the property tax, Virginia relied on the poll tax. This was because of the power of gentry there. Of this, Johnson remarked, "The poor classes protested against a poll tax. . . As a consequence, a long struggle arose between the small and large landowners, which led to violence in Bacon's rebellion."[508]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 102]

Along with the property tax, Maryland's revenue came from a tax placed on tobacco sold to the Dutch. The assembly provided that the Dutch pay a 5% custom tax on the tobacco which they purchased.[509] This was the province's largest source of tax revenue.[510] Establishing a custom tax independent of and in opposition to Parliament was revolutionary. Maryland made war at one time or another on the Crown, the Parliament, Calvert and the London capitalists in order to maintain their lucrative trade with the Dutch. The tax revenue from that trade paid for their warmaking.

A final example of how the agrarians’ revolutionary tax policy helped maintain a golden rule had to do with the February 1645 leveling of Maryland's landlords. Several years after the leveling, Calvert's governor hired a band of Virginia mercenaries to attempt to retake the province. In Calvert's contempt for the farmers, he later asked them to pay for the cost of the mercenary invasion. But the Maryland levelers had an equal contempt for Calvert and they controlled tax policy. The tenth assembly of 1648 confiscated Calvert's personal estate in Maryland to buy-off the mercenaries.[511] There were twelve documented Catholics voting for the confiscation, along with nine Protestants and nine of unknown religion.[512] When even Calvert's newly appointed governor, the Catholic, Thomas Greene, went along with the confiscation, Calvert fired him.[513] The assembly also refused to give proprietor any part of the Dutch custom to pay the mercenaries.[514]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 103]

Conclusion. Maryland's antinomian Catholics used their assembly, judiciary and tax policy to reduce merchant theft. No local or foreign capitalist was able to establish the type of monopoly in Maryland which the Dutch West India Company had over New Amsterdam. There were frequent complaints from New Amsterdam during the 1640s about the company's monopoly, which resulted in unjustified high prices.[515] No such monopoly was allowed in Maryland. Some scholars with conservative social views maintain that the Maryland Catholics and the English levelers did not wish to abolish the capitalist system. However, leveling of Calvert and the Maryland landlords, like the leveler elimination of the peerage and episcopacy, the pillars of the capitalist class, argues against this. The labor theory of value and the doctrine of antinomianism that were part of Maryland's liberation theology argue against a desire on their part to retain a system based on birth and unearned wealth.[516]

Historian Stephen Crow, voicing the conservative interpretation of Maryland history, stated that "placed besides the Levelers, Diggers, and Fifth Monarchy Men, the colonists were a conservative lot, indeed."[517] But in fact the Catholics' golden rule anticipated and set an example for the diggers program: taxes that were small and non-existent on food and other necessities, an annual parliament, a wide franchise, equal constituencies, nutritional sufficiency, a simplified legal system, no imprisonment for debt, no landlords, no enclosures and as we shall see in the next chapter, no tithes or bishops.[518] The Catholics were an American version of the English diggers. A.L. Morton's remarks about capitalist historians and their minimizing the English levelers apply to those who would downplay the Maryland Catholics:

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.[519]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 2011 ed., p. 104]

The argument here is that communism did not die out with the early church or prove to be unworkable. It has always been part of the working-class tradition. The Acts of the Apostles recorded that communism was successful in preventing economic need in the early church. Monasticism is an example of communism at a later stage in church history. Monasticism, as in the Benedictine ethic, ora et labora (work and pray) has been held up for the past 1500 years as an ideal. The religious orders have common ownership of property. Like any modern-day communist society, they provided health care, housing, education and jobs to all their members without cost. St. Thomas More reflected the accepted belief of the middle ages when he wrote in Utopia (1516) that communism was basic to a decent society. The golden rule of the Potomac Catholics was likewise part of the communist tradition.

(Figure omitted)

Figure 4-1: The leveling of the monarchy. Charles I lost his head on January 30, 1649.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 105]

Chapter 5

Antinomianism's Golden Rule in the Church

It was argued in Chapter 2 that the Maryland Church belonged to the workers. Their liturgy, holidays and customs centered on labor. They celebrated their religion in their homes and families, as well as in their Basic Christian Communities (BCCs). Following the labor theory of value, their religion had a preference for farmers, sailors, miners and teamsters rather than monks and landlords. Both individually and through the government their dealings with clerical capitalism involved a "terrible conflict."[520]

The Clergy. The Jesuit clergy were among Maryland's largest capitalists. They obtained their money from several English magnates, including William Petre, who gave them £8,000 worth of English land in 1632. From the tenants on this land, the clergy earned £500 per year. Out of that came the £1,000 that was their investment in Maryland.[521] The clergy had economic ambitions and employed 20 contract workers in the 1630s. Farm administration became a full-time job for one of the three clergy then in Maryland.[522]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 106]

In their dealings, the clergy, to the extent they were not physically and spiritually restricted by the Catholics, allied themselves with their fellow landlord, Cecil Calvert, against labor. Thus in 1639 the priest, Andrew White, S.J. advised Calvert, as was observed earlier, to initiate a monopoly or tax scheme on basic necessities modeled on the Hapsburgs that would have impoverished the farmers. Like the Hapsburg clergy in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the Maryland clergy offered the religion of obedience and consumer capitalism in order to pacify the Indians and whites for imperialism. Andrew White commented at the time:

We came to teach divine doctrine whereby to lead the Indians to heaven, and to enrich them with such ornaments of civil life as our community abounds withall, not doubting but this emperor being satisfied, the other kings would be more peaceable.[523]

The religion of consumer capitalism, of which the clergy were themselves victims, encouraged working people and the clergy to value themselves by what they consumed. Victimized were the emotionally unstable, those without impulse control, the youth, the mentally immature and those without positive social attitudes and education. They engaged in compulsive, self-destructive activity, such as gambling, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, gluttony, escapist religion, envy, money borrowing, and consumption of luxury goods (expensive houses, furnishing and clothing). Consumerism was used to fill the spiritual void that was basic to the profit system. The purpose of the capitalist media was not truth but to promote consumption. The more recent media follows the same pattern. Movie and sports stars, journalists and culture in general are little more than sellers of advertising. The purpose of capitalist housing is not shelter, but profit. Some people have more than enough space while others have little or nothing. The purpose of capitalist transportation is perverted for profit. While some go in luxury, others, if they are lucky, have inadequate, dangerous and expensive public transportation.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 107]

While the clergy provide a cosmetic cover for Calvert's profiteering and their own economic ambitions, there was no honor among thieves. The clergy advanced their own interests at Calvert's expense, when possible, as in their efforts to obtain land grants directly from the Indians. Over such real estate maneuverings the Calverts and the clergy fought during much of the colonial period.[524]

The Maryland clergy were members of the Jesuit order, which had its origins in and worked for Hapsburg capitalism. The Hapsburgs were centered in Spain, German and parts of Italy. To the extent they were able, the clergy brought Hapsburgism to Maryland. They were trained in Spain. Thomas Copley, S.J. was born in Spain to exiled English parents. His father, William Copley had a life-long pension from the Spanish crown. His politics of establishing Hapsburg rule over England, were similar to those of the present-day Cuban exiles in Miami, who spend their lives working for the CIA to overthrow Cuba's golden rule. Another of the Maryland priests, Francis Fitzherbert, S.J. (1615-76), who came in 1654, had been a chaplain in the Spanish forces at Ghent.[525] Andrew White, S.J., as we have noted, taught at Valladolid and Seville.[526]

The 17th-century Catholic worker Anthony Copley, who was no relation to Thomas Copley, spoke for his class when he commented on the disaster which Spanish Hapsburgism meant for labor:

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 108]

We are not ignorant by the example of Sicily, Naples, Lombardy, and the Low Countries (Flanders, Belgium). The Spanish king dignifies the nobles of these provinces. He endows them over and above their own patrimony with double as much pension from Spain. But to what end? Truly, to no other, than that by so retaining the affections of the nobles loyal to him, he may by their hands (being naturals) the easier tyrannize over commons to their utter bondage and beggary, as in those parts we see it.[527]

Of the 30 years of Spanish-Hapsburg imperialism in Flanders, Anthony Copley pointed out: "How displeasing the calamities of Flanders may any time these past 30 years and yet at this day touch us. With the Duke of Alva came what oppression of the commons, what wars and waste of their estates to this house (Hapsburg)."[528] An English Catholic pamphlet quoted a description of the onerous Spanish taxation system imposed on farmers:

A tale whereof I will give you as that for every chimney and other place to make fire in, as ovens, furnaces, smiths forges and such others, a french crown is yearly paid. The king also takes a pence for all manner of corn, bread, beef, mutton, capons, pigs, geese, beans, ducks, chicken, butter, cheese, eggs, apples, pears, nuts, beer, wine and all other things whatsoever he feedeth upon. Yea no farmer, yeoman or husband - durst eat a capon in his house if his friend came to him. For if he did it must cost him 6s/8d, though the capon was not worth 12d. And so toties quoties. These be the benefits and blessings that this Catholic king fought to bring in hither by his absolute authority.[529]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 109]

Anthony Copley listed among his complaints against Spanish tyranny the "taxation and rapine" of salads, eggs, pudding-pies, horse-shoeing and "the like plain and petty wares" throughout the realm.[530] English Catholics had a special reason for disliking the Hapsburgs. Emperor Charles V (1500-1558), a nephew of Queen Katherine (1485-1536), captured Rome and took Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) prisoner in 1527.[531] Charles forced the pope to block his aunt Katherine's divorce by Henry VIII (d. 1547), which created the English schism.[532]

Praemunire: No Church Courts or Canon Law. In defending their rule against the clerical landlords, the Maryland Catholics used the assembly in the same way they employed it against other would-be gentry. Among the assembly's first enactments was law number 34, which became part of Maryland’s 1638 code. Law no. 34 "guaranteed the immigrants from papal interference," as historian Alfred Dennis put it.[533] The law carried on the tradition of the First Statute of Praemunire, which, as noted earlier, was enacted in England in 1353.[534] That statute outlawed legal appeals to Rome or the extension of Roman law into England. Such appeals were one of the ways Rome and the Norman imperialists attempted to control the English church. Robert Persons, S.J., a 17th-century capitalist cleric voiced, as noted earlier, his unhappiness that for 500 years the English Catholics had resisted first the Normans and later the Hapsburgs from ruling England through Rome, "Even from the Conquest and entrance of the Normans and French Governors over our country, they have ever continued a certain faction and emulation of the laity against the clergy."[535] The praemunire law was part of English labor's resistance to imperialism and was later incorporated by Parliament into the Act of 1571 against the "Bringing in and putting into Execution of Bulls and other instruments of the See of Rome."[536]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 110]

The result of Assembly law no. 34 was that church courts and their associated money-grubbing, such as purgatory bequests, tithes (clerical taxation) and the clerical probate of wills were prohibited. In a letter of April 3, 1638 the Maryland Jesuit superior, Thomas Copley, S.J. complained to Calvert that the Catholics intended to hang him, if he persisted in his efforts to introduce church courts and canon law into Maryland. Copley wrote:

In law [no.] 34 among the enormous crimes, one is exercising jurisdiction and authority [church courts], without lawful power and commission derived from the lord proprietary. Hereby even by Catholics a law is provided to hang any Catholic bishop that should come hither, and also every priest, if the exercise of his functions be interpreted jurisdiction or authority [from Rome].[537]

Thomas Copley would not have been the first ecclesiastic to be hung during the English Civil War. Church courts, along with the theology of hell and purgatory fear-mongering, were used to enforce purgatory bequests, which were payments of money in exchange for masses for the dead. A century earlier purgatory bequests had cost Rome the loyalty of Martin Luther and his followers. The working-class priest, Thomas White, echoing his fellow priest, Henry Holden, both of whom, as noted earlier, the Maryland Catholics invited to migrate to Maryland in 1641 to replace the Jesuits, commented on the abuses arising from purgatory bequests:

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 111]

If I be thought the occasion of restraining the profuse abundance of alms in this particular, I shall withal have the satisfaction to have checked the daily increasing swarms of unworthy priests, who, like drones upon this flock, to the disgrace and contempt of their function, to the abuse of souls, and the common scandal both of those who live in and out of the church.[538]

Robert Bradley, S.J. has shown that Thomas White's antinomian attack on clerical capitalism was beloved by the working class.[539] Among the Catholics who helped enact law no. 34 was William Lewis, the clergy's own overseer. Historian Thomas Hughes, S.J., in apologizing for the clerical capitalists, commented that the support of Lewis for the law "shows how obscure to the minds of plain people and ordinary planters was the drift, meaning, and management of the code which subsequently passed."[540] However, Hughes offers no evidence that the Catholics did not know what they were doing. The 1638 code was discussed for 3 months before it was enacted. Each bill in the code was separately read aloud, debated, amended, and voted upon by all present on each of three separate days before passage.[541] Lewis was a member of the assembly when it first assigned all the matters that traditionally came under ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the provincial court. As an employee of the clergy, William Lewis knew about clerical capitalism first hand. Besides Lewis, there were 18 Catholics in the 1638 assembly. They were an absolute majority in the 1639 assembly. That they knew what they were doing and felt strongly about it came from the testimony of Thomas Copley himself. He threatened to excommunicate them all. But since he was allowed no authority, the they successfully defied him in 1638 and again in 1639, when they enacted and re-enacted the praemunire law.[542]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 112]

The praemunire criminalization of church capitalism did not result from ignorance but was part of the liberation theology which the farmers brought with them from Europe. They were veterans of battling clerical landlordism. In England there was a hierarchy of 250 Protestant church courts, until they were abolished along with the episcopacy as part of the Civil War reforms.[543] These courts had jurisdiction over the probate of wills, alimony, tithes, rates (taxes), trespassers, the sequestering of goods and livings, and the impleading of debtors.[544] The Grand Remonstrance in 1641 complained against the bishops' use of the High Commission, which was the chief ecclesiastical court, to excommunicate, suspend, and degrade the clergy. The High Commission was compared with the Roman Inquisition in the ability of the bishops to use it to impoverish, imprison, and to force to flee to Holland and New England the "meaner sort of tradesmen and artisans."[545] Alexander Leighton estimated at the time that working people needlessly spent £50,000 per annum on matrimonial suits, £100,000 on the probate of wills, and another £100,000 for "pleas and jangling matters."[546] John Milton wrote of the burden caused by the church courts:

Two leeches the episcopacy have that still suck and suck the kingdom - their ceremonies and their courts. . . For their courts, what a mass of money is drawn from the veins into the ulcers of the kingdom this way; their extortions, their open corruptions, the multitude of hungry and ravenous harpies that swarm about their offices, declare sufficiently. . . Their trade being, by the same alchemy that the pope uses, to extract heaps of gold and silver out of the drossy bullion of the people's sins.[547]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 113]

In the 1630s Maryland clergy threatened the Catholics with the bull In Coena Domini and with excommunication for taking their cases to the provincial court. That court did not look with favor on legacies for masses to be said for the souls of the deceased.[548] Those threatened included William Lewis, who facilitated the cases at court and Thomas Cornwallis, who in April 1638 administered the estates of John Saunders and Jerome Hawley in the provincial court.[549] The administration of personal, as opposed to real property, traditionally came under ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[550] However, because of law no. 34 and the apparent willingness to use capital punishment, neither canon law, the threat of excommunication, nor Rome with its bulls could sway the farmers. The clergy backed down.

In restricting clerical excess under law no. 34, the Catholics remedied not only the evil that had caused the Lutheran split and the problems associated with the church courts in England, but the even worse plague in the Hapsburg church. As noted, the Jesuits were rooted in the Hapsburg church. Judicial cases in Maryland dealing with matrimony, blasphemy, sorcery, idolatry, tithes, and sacrilege were rare.[551] Had there been ecclesiastical courts, as in the Hapsburg empire, it is likely that this would not have been the case. In Mexico in the same period, church courts were an appendage to the Hapsburg (Spanish) imperialism. Blasphemy prosecutions were frequent. Landlords used corporal punishment to coerce obedience. When workers rebelled during such punishment by blaspheming, they were turned over to church courts. The church courts applied torture, which was legal, to gain an admission of guilt concerning the blasphemy. They were further punished by the church courts to gain obedience.[552] Historian Colin Palmer commented:

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 114]

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.[553]

Guillen (William) de Lampart (1615-1659), better known as Zorro, resisted and was a victim of Mexico’s church courts. He was a migrant to Mexico from Wexford, Ireland. He had studied with the Jesuits in Dublin. Later he studied in London and Santiago, Spain. He was arrested in Mexico City in 1642 because he sided with the working people in their struggle for independence from Spain. The liberation theology he professed was condemned as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Hussism and Wycliffism. He was held in prison until 1659 when he was executed.[554]

Thomas Copley and the other Maryland clergy were familiar with tithe, marriage and blasphemy prosecutions in the ecclesiastical courts. This was common in Spain, where they had trained. Their ecclesiastical colleagues ran the courts and profited from them. Even without the courts, the Maryland clergy waged anti-blasphemy, anti-Protestant and similar struggles against the farmers.[555] But unlike in Spain, the farmers enacted a number of safeguards, including Maryland's Civil Marriage Act of 1640. This anticipated the Civil War Parliament's act of the same name. It gave women the right to bargain for marriage with anyone they chose.[556] Interdenominational and interracial marriage were recognized and the names of interdenominational and interracial couples are known.[557] This was despite the fact that marriage between Catholics and Protestants was outlawed in canon law and at the Council of Trent, although for a price, dispensations could be obtained.[558] The clergy discouraged mixed marriages and viewed Protestants as excommunicate. Had the clergy prevailed, the Catholics would have been forbidden from even speaking to Protestants. But because of their legislation, the mixed-denomination couple Thomas Gerard and Susan Snow Gerard won a judgment against the clergy for threatening excommunication and disturbing their family relations.[559]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 115]

Episcopacy Outlawed. In maintaining its golden rule, the assembly not only prohibited church courts, but their partner leech, as John Milton put it, the episcopacy.[560] In Ireland during the 1630s there were Catholic bishops in each diocese. The penal laws there were suspended by the crown's "Dispensing Power," as in the Act of Grace of 1634.[561] The English monarchy, to the extent it ruled Ireland, ruled through the Catholic bishops and their theology of obedience. In other Catholic colonies, the first bishops were appointed as soon as the imperialists established themselves militarily. In Quito a bishop was named in 1545. Europeans first appeared there in 1534. It was only in 1547 that a European-controlled civil government was established. There were less than 250 European households in Quito at the time.[562]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 116]

Even earlier the merchants had established bishops at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands (1409), at Funchal in Madeira (1514), and at Sant Iago in Cape Verde (1533), which were trading centers for the area of Africa extending south from Senegal to Guinea and the Ivory and Gold Coast. In 1639, the Cape Verde bishop became a suffragan, that is, subordinate of Lisbon. Further south in 1534 Pope Paul III (1534-1549) established a bishop on the island of Sâo Tomé. This was the largest single producer of sugar in the western world along with the Azores and the Canaries.[563] It was also a trading center for the Portuguese in the present-day area of the Congo and Angola.[564] In 1658 François de Montmorency Laval was named the bishop of French Canada.[565]

The assembly's praemunire law, in keeping the episcopacy out of Maryland, imitated what the Catholics in England had achieved earlier in the century. There was no Catholic bishop in England during the Civil War period; this was not because of the penal laws but because the English Catholics used their influence in the early 1630s to have the crown expel Richard Smith, the Catholic bishop.[566] He was pretentious and lived an extravagant lifestyle, riding around the country in a big carriage with servants. To enrich himself, he had been promoting "Catholic" probate courts and threatening excommunication in cases dealing with marriage, testaments and legacies.[567] The Catholics went to the privy council and obtained a proclamation for the bishop's arrest on a charge of treason.[568] Bishop Smith spent the last 20 years in exile in Paris.[569]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 117]

In present times Chinese Catholics have carried on the praemunire tradition. For centuries the colonial merchants used Rome and the episcopacy to implement racist policies like not allowing a native church leadership and by inhibiting Chinese religious culture. In 1704 the pope outlawed the Chinese rite. After the British imperialists won the Opium War in 1840, they promoted drug sales and drug addiction in China. At the same time they exempted by the "unequal treaties" the episcopacy from Chinese laws. The episcopacy served the public relations needs of colonialism.[570] After the revolution the Catholics, most of whom were working people, took the communist side. During the 1950s they deposed the clergy who preached the capitalist gospel. Included among the deposed was bishop Gong Pinmei of Shanghi. Theresa Chu, R.S.J., a nun who took the communist side, wrote about Gong Pinmei:

Why should that couple be refused communion when all they did was to allow their daughter to wear the red scarf awarded her in school? Why should I be refused communion when all I did was to read the People's Daily? More important issues included volunteering to fight the enemy or to nurse the wounded in Korea from 1950 to 1953, and signing a protest against germ warfare, and after 1957, the consecration of bishops.[571]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 118]

The Polish church was another 20th-century benefactor of praemunirism. In earlier times the clerical hierarchy had a hand in Poland's educational, health care and welfare system. These had been run more for the benefit of the hierarchy than the working people for whom they were intended and by whom they were financed. There was wide-spread illiteracy and poverty. The Patriotic Priests, an organization of clergy who, as noted earlier, sided with the communist revolution in the 1940s and 1950s, promoted service in the 325,000-member Volunteer Citizens Militia Reserves. This was a parapolice force directed against counterevolutionaries. It was not unusual for Patriotic Priests in their grass-roots praemunire defense to make "concordats from the bottom" with the communists over the heads of the hierarchy.[572] The church for them was not the hierarchy and the capitalist gospel; the church was the working people.[573]

The Patriotic Priests testified in court proceedings against hierarchy who took bribes from or spied for Anglo-American intelligence, such as Bishop Czeslaw Kaczmarek of Kielce in 1953.[574] By 1956 the Patriotic Priests had helped in eliminating such chronic capitalist problems as unemployment, illiteracy, lack of health care for the poor, and unsafe work conditions. There was free education at all levels, universal literacy, free health care, cheap transportation, food and housing, a more equitable distribution of goods and an improved standard of living for working people.[575]

Regulation of Convents, Mortmain and Tithes. As with church courts and bishops, Maryland's farmers reigned in the clerical profit-making that resulted from convents, monasteries, mortmain and tithes. An assembly measure in 1638 prevented the clergy from obtaining the property of Maryland women who joined convents. What instigated the measure was the arrival of the "rich, influential, and pious" Margaret Brent in 1638. She was single and according to historian Thomas Hughes, the clergy were proposing to establish a convent with her money and membership.[576] Edward Knott, S.J., a Jesuit leader in London, complained to the papal nuncio, Monsignor Rosetti on November 17, 1641 about the assembly prohibition: "[It is] extremely disparaging to the dignity and authority of the Supreme Pastor, Christ's Vicar upon earth."[577] Henry More, S.J., another Jesuit superior in England reported to Rome that the Maryland "law is repugnant to the Christian faith and ecclesiastical immunities: that no virgin can inherit unless she marries before 29 years of age."[578] Thomas Copley remarked that the assembly legislation was contrary to canon law in requiring that "unless a woman marry within 7 years after land falls to her, she must either dispose away of her land, or else she shall forfeit it to the next of kin."[579]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 119]

Convents and monasteries were unpopular both because of ecclesiastical profiteering and because they were identified with the gentry monopoly system of primogeniture. Primogeniture required the succession of the eldest son to the entire real property of the father. Entailed land stayed in the family and could not be given away, willed by testament, sold by deed, or seized by creditors. Primogeniture tended to make the priesthood and sisterhood a dumping ground for the gentry’s younger sons and daughters who lacked sufficient inheritance to make them marriageable. In feudal times the convent and primogeniture system was confined to the magnates but by the seventeenth century it was wide-spread.[580]

The levelers attacked primogeniture during the Civil War for its denigration of the family in the service of capital concentration. English liberation theologian John ap Robert in Apology for a Younger Brother (1634) used the Bible to show the system was wrong.[581] A fellow revolutionary, the Independent, Hugh Peter (1598-1660) used the labor theory of value to advocate that daughters who worked should have an equal portion with sons.[582]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 120]

During the war the levelers in the barebones Parliament outlawed primogeniture.[583] They condemned the Royalists who were using Aristotle and the Bible to teach the primogeniture approach to the family. The king was said to have inherited the original patriarchal power from God and Adam.[584] The tenantry whose rent supported the system were politically and economically victimized. The crown and lords held an indefeasible hereditary right in government as well as land.[585]

Mortmain was another aspect of ecclesiastical capitalism which the Maryland farmers curtailed. antinomians prohibited. Mortmain, literally "dead hand," meant holding property corporately, rather than personally. In England a statute against ecclesiastical mortmain was first enacted in the thirteenth century to control the monopolizing of land by the Norman monasteries.[586] The aim was to keep the church's land, revenue, services, and theology under local control rather than under the control of a foreign hierarchy.[587]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 121]

The anti-mortmain struggle of Catholics in the Hapsburg empire did not succeed until the communist revolution of the 20th century. In Czechoslovakia, two anti-mortmain laws were enacted in 1948. One of these, the Law Concerning Agrarian Reform ended the landlord system, including clerical landlordism. The hierarchy's 320,000 hectacres were transformed into collective farms.[588] The other Czechoslovakian anti-mortmain act was the Law Concerning Education, which nationalized private schools. The clergy and nuns who worked in these schools became public servants. Private hospitals and the hierarchy's Caritas social service agency were likewise nationalized. Their services then became available to all without charge.[589] In the same period the church hierarchy's newspaper, Acta Curiae, was replaced by a revolutionary paper, Katolicke Noviny (Catholic News) and its libraries were nationalized and made into public libraries. On April 14, 1950 most religious orders and congregations were dissolved and their real estate collectivized. For centuries these organizations had operated as a type of communism for their members exclusively.[590]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 122]

Tithes and glebes were yet another form of ecclesiastical profiteering which the Maryland Catholics prohibited was tithes and glebes. In Europe these were the economic basis for the established church with its absentee and pluralist pastors. The type of voluntary support for the clergy which Maryland set up, including direct labor such as helping to build chapels and cemeteries and house liturgies had been practiced by revolutionary Catholics since the Lollards.[591]

Pastoral Legislation. In defending the church farmers enacted a fourth measure in addition to criminalizing ecclesiastical courts, the episcopacy and convents. This legislation forced the clergy to provide services to the farmers.[592] Starting in 1638 the clergy were required to serve as "pastors." This meant officiating at BCC baptisms, marriages, burials, and liturgy. The Jesuits protested against the pastoral law, calling it "inconvenient."[593] Reformers at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, 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 that the profiteering was addressed. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy required that the clergy serve as pastors.[594]

The clergy who came to America identified with the gentry. They did not migrate to be pastors; they expected that secular priests, that is, non-Jesuits, would come out for that purpose. This did happen for a period in the early 1640s when two secular priests came to Maryland for a short period.[595] The Jesuits' counterparts in other parts of the colonial world hired secular clergy to attend to the needs of the laboring people who worked on their estates.[596]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 123]

From their foundation, the Jesuits were hostile to working people and their liberation theology. Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the order's founder, started out his career as a soldier along with 4,000 German and Turkish mercenaries for the Spanish-German-Hapsburgs against his own people. Ignatius was from Guipúzcoa, which was a province in the kingdom of Castile. In 1512 King Ferdinand (1452-1516) of Aragon and Regent of Castile captured Navarre, which bordered Guipúzcoa on the southeast. Ignatius was part of the occupying military force under Antonio Manrique de Lara who was the Duke of Nájera and Castilian Viceroy of Navarre.

Resistance against the occupation was led by the town-comuneros, which was a coalition of agrarian tenants, artisans, manufacturers, merchants and professionals. Their liberation theology sought class justice. Jacques LeGoff has remarked on how the egalitarian nature of the comuneros was disliked by social-climbers like Loyola:

What was revolting about the origins of the urban movement and its rural pendant was the egalitarian oath, in contrast to the contract of vassalage, which bound the inferior to a superior.[597]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 124]

In 1521 Ignatius was wounded in doing battle against a revolt of the comuneros. On the side of the working people were 400 parish clergy and bishops. They maintained they were following the example of the historical Jesus. Their enemy was led by the Holy Roman emperor Charles V (1500-1558) and by local landlords that were under his patronage. The Hapsburgs had been confiscating Spanish offices, land, and taxes to sell to German merchants.[598] Because of the predation, Spanish roads and bridges ceased to be properly maintained, and soldiers and officials were not paid.[599] Even the income from the See of Toledo, regarded as next in importance to the See of St. Peter, was sold to foreigners.[600] Hapsburg imperialism under Hernando Cortes was carrying out a similar program against the Aztecs in Mexico in the same period (1519-1521).

After being wounded, Loyola converted from a military to a religious career. But he kept the same master, the Hapsburg capitalists. He had little regard for the manual workers whom his order employed. When he wished to reprimand well-born recruits, he delegated the task to the cook. This was because the reprimand was supposedly more stinging when coming from such a “low” person.[601]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 125]

Had there been no pastoral legislation in Maryland, the Jesuits would have repeated their snobbish behavior. In England the gentry monopolized a majority of the clergy as house chaplains and tutors for their children. The Jesuits, with their notions of top-down military discipline within the order, were especially subject to manipulation by capital. The contemporary Christopher Bagshaw described the negative results for labor, "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."[602]

Because of the clergy’s prejudices, even with the pastoral and other legislation, the Maryland farmers had to wage a battle for clerical services. The Jesuits, like the capitalist class generally, had a contempt for labor. For Thomas Copley, S.J. the antinomian BCCs were "factious."[603] When, because of an economic downturn, it appeared the clergy might have to get their hands dirty with manual labor, they protested that this was against the "laws of the Church of God" and "God's cause" and incompatible with their ideas about clerical dignity.[604] In referring to the "the laws of the church of God," the clergy did not mean those established by the people. When forced to live like the laboring people, the clergy complained of having no servants and of living "in a vile little hut, mean and low down in the ground."[605]

The complaints by the French-Canadian Jesuit, Paul LeJeune in 1634, were similar to those of his Maryland counterparts. While he complained that life with the Indian working people was filled with cold, hunger, cramped conditions, sickness, smoke and poor water, they loved their lives. The men hunted, trapped, fished, built and repaired their lodgings; the women cooked, took care of the children, cured beaver and other pelts, and made clothing. They lived a cooperative existence with a shared morality. It was LeJeune, not the Indians, who was miserable. He chose not to labor with the men, and was not allowed to play a religious role, since the people had their own religious leader with whom they were satisfied. His misery was in not laboring either as hunter or as pastor.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 126]

One of the Algonquians, who learned French and was baptized, went to Europe to study. Upon his return he was called a "poor miserable renegade" and "apostate" by LeJeune because he decided to live with his people. LeJeune could not accept that the French-speaking Algonquian would prefer labor and the nomadic life of his relatives and friends to the life he had led in Europe.[606] The French-Canadian priest, Jean de Brébeuf commented about the Hurons' respect for the best laborers:

All the fine qualities which might make you loved and respected in France are like pearls trampled under the feet of swine, or rather of mules, which utterly despise you when they see that you are not as good pack animals as they are.[607]

The Maryland clergy's tastes in baroque liturgical accessories reflected their gentry preferences. In 1645 they possessed tapestries embroided in gold and silver, jewelry made of gold, diamond, sapphire, and ruby, as well as silver plate.[608] Reflecting on the clergy's dislike for the agrarian church in which they were forced to serve, the historian Christopher Haigh 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.[609]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 127]

By the time of the Civil War there were ten English-language Catholic colleges and convents on the continent established and financed through the tuition paid by the gentry for their children. Because of the cost, most laboring Catholics could not attend. These schools had been operating since the 1590s and had as many as 1,000 students in some years.[610] Almost 5,000 graduates became priests and nuns in the first-half of the seventeenth century. Hated of labor and laboring people was at the center of the religion taught in these schools.[611]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 128]

The Jesuit hostility to the Maryland church was encouraged by their constitutions and traditions, which glorified the wealthy rather than service to BCCs. Thomas Aquinas, himself an ordered priest, had called the congregational ministry "a lower grade of perfection."[612] Historian John O'Malley comments, "The Jesuits deliberately forswore for themselves the very offices with which reform was concerned - papacy, episcopacy, pastorate."[613] The constitution of the Jesuit order 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."[614] By "important" the Jesuits meant capital, not labor. This was not far different from the argument of Gregory the Great and the gentry clergy for a millennium. It was, as Paul Meyvaert points out, the age-old justification, in a Christian version, of Roman imperialism, the natural subordination of barbarians to Romans, as slaves to freemen.[615] It turned up "dismayingly often" in the Jesuit heroes.[616] Ministering to the wealthy, it was said, would filter down to the laboring people.

In their annual reports to Europe the Maryland Jesuits always stressed it was to the "chief men," to whom they ministered their main devotion or ministry, the Spiritual Exercises. One report stated, "Several of the chief men have, through the use of the Spiritual Exercises, been formed by us to piety, a fruit by no means to be despised."[617] The same report spoke of "a noble matron" who had lately died, "She was fond of us when living, and a benefactor to us when dying."

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 129]

The Spiritual Exercises and the life which it taught was directed at inspiring personal piety in the gentry: lengthy and complex daily meditation and self-examination, scripture reading, acts of penance, catechizing, spiritual direction from a priest, and mass and frequent sacraments.[618] The Anglican gentry, including the Puritans, often had the same ideals and shared the same books as their Catholic counterparts.[619] The Spiritual Exercises and personal piety were not designed to serve laboring people and in fact distracted the clergy from such pursuits. The criticism by the English Catholic Thomas Hawkins (d. 1639) about the anti-labor nature of devotions like the Spiritual Exercises was on the mark:

Since the work of hands has ceased, they have extremely praised mental prayer. Tis in what constituted the heresy of the Messalians, condemned in the fourth century. And what Catholics reproached them for the most was their contempt of labor. . . Mental prayer is a lazy devotion. The clergy make a long and difficult art, pretending to distinguish exactly the several states of prayer, and the degrees and progress of Christian perfection. And it was made long since to turn all the texts of scripture to a figurative sense.[620]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 130]

Among the "chief men" in Maryland formed by the Spiritual Exercises was the governor, Leonard Calvert. When he died at age 41 in 1647, his estate was worth little more than £150, but it had "a table book [bible] and a discipline [whip], a bone cross, a gold reliquary case, a kneeling desk, and a picture of Pauls [the Protestant cathedral in London]."[621] The gentry ideal of personal devotion, as opposed to BCC service, held up for imitation the Jesuit saints such as Aloysius Gonzaga. Gonzaga believed it was a virtue to daily beat himself bloody and indulge in an abundance of mental prayer.[622] Calvert's discipline and kneeling desk corresponded to these requirements.

Another of the chief men for whom the clergy showed a bias was the local Conoy (Indian) leader. For a period in 1639 Andrew White, S.J. took up residence in what he called the "palace" of the Patuxent king and later of the Piscataway "king." He became their chaplain, not unlike the domestic chaplain of an English landlord. And not unlike a domestic chaplain, White arranged for the Piscataway king's eldest daughter, who was 7 years old, to be educated among the English and married to a European. The Indian king's real estate descended matrilineally through this eldest daughter. John Brooke, S.J. reflected in 1641 that "many of the higher ranks of Indians show themselves inclined towards the Christian faith, amongst them being the king of the Anacostians."[623]

Associated with the clergy's negative views of the Maryland church was a suicidal dislike of life itself. This translated into a quick and glorious martyrdom as a missionary to the Indians and no congregational service. Their hero was, as noted above, the Jesuit saint, Aloysius Gonzaga. He joined the order so that he could "sacrifice" his life in converting the Indians to Christ in the American missions.[624] Another Jesuit, 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."[625]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 131]

In ministering to the Maryland Indians, several of the clergy did die from the diseases and difficulties they met. However, the Maryland farmers were not interested in martyrdom; they needed pastors. In later assembly codes such as that of 1639, limitations were placed on the clergy's freedom to live among the Indians.[626]

Resistance to Capitalist Theology. The corollary to liberation theology's celebration of labor was resistance against capitalism. The resistance was both material and spiritual. In the Maryland church, the material struggle involved the criminalization of church courts, episcopacy, convents, mortmain, and tithes along with mandating BCC service by the clergy. The spiritual struggle centered around antinomianism. The power of Maryland's antinomian theology can be appreciated by contrasting it not only with the military, political and economic forces which it leveled, but with the clerical-capitalist theology that it overcame. Clerical propaganda for obedience to the established order was everywhere, starting with the Douay translation of the bible. This bible was the exclusive English-language version for the seventeenth-century Catholics who chose not to use the Protestant translations. It emphasized in its marginal notes the political virtue of obedience to the crown and similar authority, such as Calvert. This was despite the pope's wishes that Protestant kings be overthrown.[627] The note for 1 Kings 8 taught:

In case kings or other princes commit excesses and oppress their subjects, yet are they not by and by to be deposed by the people nor commonwealth, but must be tolerated with patience, peace and meekness.[628]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 132]

The marginal note for Macabees 4:1 stated, "In the case of tyranny, the best remedy is by authority of superior power, not by the people, who are more prone to faction than justice."[629]

Maryland's antinomian Catholics paid no mind to such religion, nor to the Catholic magnates in Calvert's circle who developed the theme that obedience (to landlords) was the way to curb pride and rebellion. Such writers included Walter Montagu in Miscellanea Spiritualia and Tobie Matthew in his translation of Practice of Perfection.[630] John Abbot in Jesus Praefigured, which he dedicated to Charles I, called rebellion a crime.[631] William Davenant, the Maryland royalist governor who was never allowed to set foot in Maryland, propagandized that working people were weak in mind, creatures of the senses and in "Gondibert" (1651) called for Charles II to put them down because they were "in a condition of beasts whose appetite is liberty and their liberty a license of lust."[632] God's people in the gentry’s view had four marks:

The first is a profound humility. The second a great love of virginity. The third, a great obedience to superiors, recommended by St. Paul to the Romans: Let every soul be subject to superior powers. The fourth a sweetness and an admirable patience in persecutions.[633]

Neo-Platonic love, which the court often held up as the greatest virtue was equated with peace and obedience.[634] Davenant equated obedience to the crown with liberty.[635]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 133]

Conclusion. The resistance to clerical capitalism appears not to have been unique to the Maryland Catholics. It occurred wherever there were class divisions. In New England in the same period working people in the Congregational church enacted legislation to restrict its clergy. In the Platform of Church Discipline, the Massachusetts General Court set regulations on the holding of clerical gatherings.[636] A defender of the clergy, Thomas Parker, protested that presbyters rather than the "votes and suffrages of the people" should dictate church government.[637] Similarly, in England the Independents legislated against the Presbyterians. After the abolition of episcopal-controlled church courts on January 26, 1643, the Presbyterian gentry in Parliament sought to get control of the church through regional and national clerical-dominated assemblies.[638] However, the local congregations, including their church Catholic members refused to recognize the synods or to send deputies to them. In establishing a golden rule some 2,000 clergy were ejected by local parishes for failure to identify with and serve the needs of their congregations.

Not least of the battles waged against clerical excesses was that by the relatives of the Maryland Catholics back in England. They had to contend with those under the influence of the Catholic magnates and Hapsburg imperialism. Thomas Hughes, S.J. writes about the attempt of the English Catholics in the 1640s to deport the these clergy to Maryland:

A project had been started by a certain class of Catholics, to invoke the power of the heterodox Parliament to expel from England into far-off Maryland another class of Catholics who did not agree with them in religion and political views. And the Jesuits they proposed to rid the realm of altogether. . . Whereas the Cromwellian formula had been "Off to Virginia," or "Off to Barbados," for the Scotch prisoners taken at Dunbar, the Catholic agitators in 1647 introduced the variation, "Off to Maryland," as the lot of English Roman Catholics.[639]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 2011 ed., p. 134]

Despite the resistance of their clergy, labor's golden rule dominated Maryland's BCCs. No virtue was found by the farmers in obedience to those clergy and hierarchy that wanted to live in comfort on labor's back.[640] Maryland's ideal was antinomianism. It led to a conflict over church courts, bishops, covenants and pastoring which brought a bountiful reward - a church that was on the side of labor.

(Figure omitted)

Figure 5-1: Catholic landlord piety: one of the gentry is quoting a passage from scripture in praising those at court, "I said you are as gods" (Ego dixi dij estis). Jesus is depicted as a king, receiving the crown and going the royal way (via regia) and as a cleric, receiving a bishop's hat.[641]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 135]

Chapter 6

Resistance to Landlord Theology

As was seen in the discussion of its European background, liberation theology's defense of working people involved both a material and a spiritual element. In Maryland too, there was a material, armed struggle against local and foreign landlord control of church and state, and also a spiritual struggle against the gentry’s theology. Some of these spiritual struggles were touched on earlier, such as labor-value versus labor-as-sin, commutative versus distributive (class) justice and antinomianism versus obedience. This chapter will look at another theological struggle. It was part of the agrarians’ class solidarity, internationalism and distributive justice. It was waged against the divide-and-conquer racism of the established order that focused on differences in language, national origins, color and religion. To the extent working people had power, as in Maryland, they provided for a subsistence economy and full employment. Without the weapon of unemployment, capital's divide-and-conquer spiritual attack was harmless.

Blood and Family Racism. Divine race ideology was one of the beliefs promoted by Calvert and his class to divide workers from loyalty to their own class. In this theology the gentry passed themselves off as a divine race, whose theft of labor value was part of God’s plan. It was noted earlier that in Europe the working people reversed gentry racism by using genealogy, coats-of-arms, religious heroes and holidays in behalf of worker unity. Maryland Catholics did likewise against monarchical, single family and "noble blood" racial beliefs.

An article of the proprietor’s faith was that those with "noble blood" were literally a divine race. Calvert and his class addressed the king as "your sacred majesty."[642] The monarch’s blood was said to cure the sick.[643] Calvert's fellow landlord, Thomas Wentworth, was not unusual in calling the king a God on earth:

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 136]

The prerogative of the crown is the first table of the Fundamental Law. It has something more imprinted on it. It hath a divinity imprinted on it. It is God's anointed. It is He that gives the Powers. Kings are as gods on earth.[644]

The Stuart court in which the proprietor was a functionary, viewed itself as a "type" of the court around God's heavenly throne.[645] The Catholic magnate Walter Montagu suggested that contemplation of the English court was a good way to learn about heaven:

From the riches of court men may make optic glasses through which they do the easier take the high celestial glories; and surely the sight of our minds is much helped by such material interests, in the speculation of spiritualities.[646]

The antinomian theology of Maryland's working people seems to have viewed such racial beliefs as blasphemy. The Catholics pointed out that the king's power derived from purely historical causes and they made war against that power.[647] Maryland carried on the "Norman yoke" tradition of resistance, which was as ancient as the monarchy itself. Since the Conquest there had been a theology of resistance to the "Norman yoke," especially in the north and west of England where many of the Maryland workers grew up.[648] In their resistance to monarchical racism, the Maryland Catholics also drew upon the history of the anti-monarchical communes in Spain, Germany, and Italy, of the republics in Italy and Holland, not to mention the ancient Greek and Roman examples.[649] Humanist literature in Maryland like that of Thomas More and Erasmus popularized the idea that republicanism was preferable to monarchy.[650] The first nation with which Maryland established diplomatic relations after gaining its independence from the crown in 1645 was the Dutch Republic. Two Maryland ambassadors opened up a diplomatic mission there.[651] The Royalists charged that Maryland's denigration of the Crown was blasphemy to God.[652]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 137]

Maryland was similarly hostile to a second aspect of the gentry’s biological theology. This was the idea that those with "noble" blood were all part of a "single family" with the king. Earls when in the presence of the king kept their coronets on their heads "as cousins to the king."[653] They condemned mixing their blood in non-noble marriages. The off-spring of such mixed unions they called mongrels.[654] Catholic nobility like Thomas Brudenell stated the economic reason for being in the Royalist family, "Let's keep the Crown glorious and entire, the more one's safety and renown."[655] These beliefs among the Catholic magnates may help explain why 200 of the 500 royal officers killed during the Civil War were Catholic.[656] The Catholic nobility supported the war because being in the royal family was profitable. They had been members of and supporting the royal family, or propagandized that they had been doing such, since the Norman invasion.

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 138]

"Single family" racism tied the landlord class to divinity. As God or God's representative on earth, obedient support for them during the English Civil War was claimed to be a religious duty. A Catholic magnate remarked at the time, "My duty to God cannot be complied with, without an exact performance of my duty to my sovereign. This doctrine was instilled into my youth by catechism and confirmed to my riper years by sermons and conferences."[657] Another of the Catholic magnates, Thomas Brudenell, wrote about 1640:

Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for who resists power resists God, and ex consequentia who rebels against kings doth so against God and purchases damnation.[658]

The catechisms of the magnates propagandized for "single family" and monarchical racism. This form of government, according to Thomas Aquinas, "best assured stability of power, wealth, honor and fame" for the landlords - if not for workers.[659] Those saints who were the objects of racial devotion included no less than twenty canonized kings.[660]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 139]

In contrast to the gentry’s theology, liberation theology tended to be race-blind. If anything, the levelers themselves, not the magnates, as God's chosen and in possession of divine attributes and powers. Labor was God's original grace and blessing. The cause and result of the fall was the class system. Working people had no duty to worship or obey the king and his decadent family. Their spirituality reversed the gentry doctrine by making working people all part of the same family. It was to their golden rule that God wanted obedience. The revolutionary Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger mocked the royalist racists, who because they had "some drops of the king's blood running in their veins derived some ten degrees off," believed they were entitled to be a separate, non-laboring race, that squandered the nation's wealth.[661]

Related to monarchical and single-family racism was another biological belief against which Maryland labor resisted. This was the doctrine that "noble blood" was needed to govern. Earlier, in looking at Europe, it was noted that the gentry’s use of racism to promote its agenda dated to the ancient Romans and Greeks, if not earlier. George Calvert, who first obtained the Maryland charter, used this biological justification in seeking to subvert Parliament and the Maryland assembly. According to Calvert, workers had no legitimacy in legislating: "Antiquity shows that by inheritance the realm succeeds in one line and family. Dominion is centered in the same race and blood (italics added). Kings and kingdoms were before Parliaments. The Parliament was never called for the purpose to meddle with complaints against the king, or church or state matters."[662] George Calvert baited Parliament for being a friend of democracy, just as his son Cecil did to the Maryland assembly:

They bark against kings and councils, and spit upon the crown [italics added] like friends of democracies, of confusion and irregularity. They seek to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, and cashiere so many places of baronies in the upper house, and yet these men pretend to be friends and patrons of Parliaments and order. . . Where a prince is sovereign, no subject can be partaker of his sovereignty, which is a quality not communicable, for it resideth in a body politique, and if it be divided (without the prince's consent), it looses the sovereignty.[663]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 140]

While the established order tried to advance its rule based on noble blood beliefs, the Maryland Catholics, like the English levelers, based their political sovereignty on the class unity arising from their labor. In Europe the workers fought racial propaganda by celebrating the achievements and the unity of their class through genealogy, coats-of-arms, religious heroes and holidays. In Maryland they went further. Because they dictated the government, they did to Calvert what his racism had in mind for them. They disenfranchised him. In place of having "noble blood" as the requirement for ruling, they made membership in the working class the requirement. In excluding him and those under his patronage from the assembly, they turned Calvert's biological beliefs upside-down. A member of Calvert's class in Catholic Yorkshire who received similar treatment, recalled with distaste:

We had a thing called a committee in our locality which overruled deputy-lieutenants and also justices of the peace, and of this we had brave men: Ringwood of Newport, the pedlar; Maynard, the apothecary; Matthews, the baker; Wavell and Legge, farmers, and poor Baxter of Hurst Castle. These ruled the whole area and did whatsoever they thought good in their own eyes.[664]

In defending against the gentry’s blood and family beliefs, the Maryland Catholics were aided in the late 1640s by the English levelers. As noted, shortly before Charles I was executed in 1649, Cecil Calvert switched his allegiance to Parliament, hoping that that body could defeat the Maryland farmers. As a result of the switch, Charles I named royalist Catholic playwrite, William Davenant, to be Maryland's governor. His propaganda for the Crown included the doctrine that one needed noble blood to rule. As he put it in the poem "Gondibert" (1651), "the most necessary men are those who become principal by prerogative of blood."[665] For Davenant this translated into justification for his rule in Maryland. However, Davenant and his French mercenaries were captured at the Isle of Wright by the levelers before their ship left English waters.[666] He spent the rest of the Civil War in a parliamentary jail writing racist poetry, like Gondibert, rather than ruling. His capture saved the Catholics from "spitting on the Crown," as George Calvert had put it.

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 141]

Indian-European National Chauvinism. Besides gentry blood and family beliefs, Maryland's Catholics also defended against another type of divide-and-conquer racist theology. This belief focused on differences in language, religion, national origins and color. Calvert and the Crown wanted to divide the European and Indian working people against each other, the better to profit from both. Similar beliefs had long been used by the Crown in attempts to split those such as the Irish, Welsh and Scottish, who were the aborigines of England from the English (Teutonic Saxon) farmers.[667]

Celtic languages had been spoken by the people of England from about 2000 BC.[668] The English or Teutonic Saxons started to settle in England in large numbers by 490 AD.[669] In expanding their racial theology to cover Indians the merchant writer Gervase Markham wrote in 1600 that the American Indians and the Irish had the same origins and that both served the devil.[670]

Similarly, in Mexico, Peru, New England and Virginia, landlord theology attempted to employ national chauvinism to drive a wedge between the Indian and European workers. The Spanish imperialists in Mexico tried, but with little success, to make the Indians learn the Spanish vocabulary for the essential words of capitalist Catholicism.[671] This was accompanied by efforts to destroy the Indian's working class religion.[672] Virginia Protestantism likewise in the 1610s and 1620s, and the New England Congregational Indian ministry of John Eliot (1604-1690) made an effort to ensure that there was no identification between Indian cosmology and Europe's landlord religion.[673]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 142]

In contrast, liberation theology in the Maryland Basic Christian Communities was internationalist. It supported both autonomous political, economic and religious development among nationality groups and at the same time cooperation and unity against imperialism.[674] This was the policy between the St. Mary's, the Indian and the Annapolis communities. From the start, the Conoy's internationalist beliefs promoted the European settlement at St. Mary's. This was because in the first part of the seventeenth century the Conoy had been under encroachment from the Powhatan and European merchants in Virginia to the southwest and from the Iroquois-speaking Susquehannock who lived to the north at the head of the Delmarva Peninsula in present-day Pennsylvania and Delaware.[675]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 143]

For the class-divided Powhatans, warfare had been endemic prior to the European arrival.[676] They had an empire until 1646 to which most of the Algonquian villages in Eastern Virginia were forced to pay an annual tribute.[677] The Powhatan emperor in the 1610s, whose name happened to be Powhatan, appointed his brothers and sons to rule the subject tribes. He had slaves as well as whole villages that raised food for him and his 100 wives. A few groups such as the Chickahominies persisted in governing by a council of elders. The Conoy with their Euro-Maryland allies were militant in maintaining their own rule and resisted Powhatan raids.

The Euro-Virginian merchants had likewise made war against the Maryland Piscataways and Natotchtanks in 1624. William Claiborne, a Virginia land speculator, made an alliance with the Susquehannock enemies of the Conoy in the late 1620s. He led a party that leveled an Indian town at Cantauncrck on the north side of the York River in March 1629 and then patented the town for himself in 1640.[678] The Susquehannock were in turn allied to the Iroquois and Hurons in the Great Lakes and to New Sweden on the Delaware Bay between 1638 and 1655.[679] Conoy women and children were sometimes kidnapped and their goods were stolen by Susquehannock raiding parties.[680] In addition to the outside encroachments, the Conoy had been reduced in number in the century prior to the European arrival because of disease.[681]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 144]

The alliance with St. Mary’s and their arms helped the Conoy farmers even the balance between themselves and the Virginians and Susquehannock.[682] The Euro-Marylanders who had to pay for the wars and do the fighting were never enthusiastic about fighting the Susquehannocks.[683] But when attacked they fought back, as in 1642.[684] This was an advantage to the Conoy. St. Mary's served as a buffer. The Conoy subgroup that had been living at what became St. Mary's in 1634, were called the Yeocomicos, after the Algonquian name for the river on which they lived. Some continued to live there with the Europeans but many moved across the nearby Potomac River to live with their relatives there.[685] This move had been decided upon prior to the European arrival in Maryland.[686]

The Conoy and the migrants in Maryland were politically autonomous from each other in politics but as noted, they cooperated with each other. Both were farmers and they fought with class unity against their merchant enemies in Virginia, Pennsylvania-Delaware and Europe. Likewise, both defended their golden rule against Calvert's aggression. Well into the 18th century, the Calverts sought to gain a veto over the election of the Conoy's top leader, but this was never given.[687] Similarly, Calvert tried without success to monopolize the Conoy's trading of beaver pelts, deer skins, corn and land, just as he tried to do against the European migrants.[688]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 145]

In religion, as in politics, there seems to have been autonomy between the Indians and whites and at the same time, cooperation growing out of class unity. To the extent the Conoy adopted Catholic theology, they did it, like the St. Mary's antinomians, on their own terms. The Conoy Catholics in their BCCs retained their traditional religious language along with their classless political, economic and religious structure.[689] For example, when Andrew White, S.J. translated the Apostle's Creed into Eastern Algonquian, it was the Conoy nature force or god, manet in whom belief was expressed: nauzamo manet (I believe in God). The "Catholic church" was translated as poqwatz-akkawan manet, that is, manet's house.[690]

Guatemalan Catholicism was similar to that in Maryland in terms of being working-class dominated and hostile to the theology of national chauvinism. Historian Adrian von Oss's description of the syncretic nature of Guatemalan liberation theology could equally be said of the Conoy:

Roman Catholicism was a syncretic religion before it even reached America's shores - one of the reasons it was difficult to explain or understand `correctly' - and it should have surprised no one that the highland Guatemalan church rapidly acquired its own character.[691]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 146]

Maryland's liberation theology had the same willingness to syncretize as occurred in the sixth-century mission to Europe or the sixteenth-century mission to China and India. There was a mixing of cosmologies and an adaptation to the local conception of religion. In China and India this meant a blend of Catholicism and Confucianism (the China rites) or Catholicism and Hinduism (the Malabar rites).[692]

Along with politics and religion, there was both economic autonomy and cooperation between the Maryland Indians and whites. The Europeans assimilated their subsistence corn farming and their cash crops (tobacco and pelts) from the Indians.[693] Africa assimilated cassava cultivation from the American Indians, which to the present day is the dietary staple for 200 million Africans. From the Conoy perspective the St. Mary's community was a source for European technology and a trade outlet for their surplus corn, tobacco, fish, oysters, fowl, and deer skins.[694] James Axtell remarks, "having been introduced to the cloth and metal trade goods of the Virginia traders, the Indians welcomed the Marylanders as future and more reliable sources of the same."[695] The Patuxents had been trading with the Virginians since the 1620s.[696] The new technology, such as iron axes, knives, hatchets, hoes, needles, thread, and fish-hooks was an improvement on their traditional farming technology.[697] Cloth was warmer and lighter than animal skins. Andrew White observed that the Conoy "exceedingly desired Christian apparel."[698] They continued to favor traditional clothing style, but they used English fabrics when they could. Women's aprons and men's breechclouts were made of blue or red cotton, with a matchcoat of Duffields for cold weather.[699] Leggings continued to be worn, but were made of cotton. When they wore English-style coats, the preference was for diverse colors. In time the Indians took up weaving wool clothing for themselves.

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 147]

European housing technology was also an area which some of the Conoy wanted to assimilate.[700] A few preferred English timber frame cottages to the rectangular barrel-roofed Conoy construction. Most however maintained the traditional yi-hakans (later called wigwams or cabins) construction until well into the eighteenth century. However, iron technology allowed them to improve upon it.[701] Bark coverings became standard on most of their houses where before this had been available only to a few. The change was possible because everyone possessed iron hatchets, tools that reduced the time needed to cut through enough bark to cover a house. Because of the bark addition, houses were able to have windows left between slabs of bark, "Their windows are little holes left open for the passage of light, which in bad weather they stop with sheaths of the same bark, opening the leeward windows for air and light."[702]

Africans. Both Calvert and the Crown wanted to use national chauvinism to undermine Conoy and St. Mary's sovereignty as part of a larger imperialist relationship between Europe and North America. This was resisted by Conoy and Euro-migrant internationalism. Similarly, the Maryland Catholics were color-blind against attempts to pit white and black workers against each other. It was not until the 18th century that African-American slavery became a significant form of production in the Chesapeake, despite attempts at it from the beginning.[703] During the Civil War period, the transport of slaves to Maryland, like the transport of contract workers, ceased. The working class control of the militia and the resulting ease with which workers, both contract and slave, ran away, squatted, leveled or otherwise rebelled, made capitalism impossible. Capitalists in the post-Civil War period did not have it any easier. They faced continuous rebellion. Illustrative was John Hawkins who was killed by the five Africans that he attempted to enslave in 1671.[704]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 148]

The prosperous life of black and white Maryland workers contrasted with the situation of those in areas where landlords controlled the military, such as Providence Island. This was a 17th-century English colony about 100 miles off the coast of Nicaragua. Run by the Providence Island Company and its mercenary soldiers, the migrants at best held land only as tenants and were prohibited from having an assembly. Over half the migrants were African slaves.[705] There was poor nutrition and high mortality.

During the Civil War period there were few African migrants in Maryland. The best documented were Portuguese-Congo freemen. At least one, Mathew de Sousa, was a mulatto (mestiço). They had Portuguese, not African names: John Baptista, Francisco, and Antonio (Tony).[706] Sousa, who come to Maryland in 1633, in petitioning for naturalization in 1671 mentioned that his home country was Portugal.[707] He came to Maryland for the same reason the Europeans came: to liberate himself from the class system. Sousa lived off his own labor as a boatman and farmer.[708] Both Portugal and the Congo were class-divided societies in which the landlords promoted a negative view of labor, employed slave labor and engaged in international credit-based market relations.[709]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 149]

The Portuguese-Congo migrants in Maryland were fifth-generation Catholics. The African kingdom of Congo, which was located in what is now Angola, had been officially Catholic since King Nzinga Nkuwu had himself baptized under the name Joâo in 1491.[710] With their capital at Sâo Salvador, the Catholic Congolese had an extensive system of BCCs, schools, pamphlets in their own kikongo (Bantu) language, and a fluency in Portuguese among those who were merchants.[711] According to historian John Thornton the Congolese were proud of their Catholic heritage, "which they believed made them a distinctive people."[712]

Just as the Europeans brought their liberation theology with them when they came to America, so the black migrants brought their liberation theology from Africa. Conservative historians who study Congolese Catholicism maintain that it served only the interests of the merchants, that is, it was a light syncretism confined to the landlord strata at court, that it was a façade to enhance the Congo's diplomatic relations to Europe, and that its strength was proportional to the number of European clergy in the country, which in certain periods was not great. Thornton disputes the accuracy of these conclusions. Since the Congo converted to Catholicism of its own free will, Thornton comments, "the shape and structure of the church and its doctrines were determined by the Congolese not the Europeans. Because the Congo controlled the church, attempts to use the church for political leverage by outsiders were not successful, although the Portuguese tried regularly to do so."[713]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 150]

The Congo government maintained control over foreign clerical interference by favoring BCCs and native secular clergy for church offices and by cutting off the income of the foreign clergy when necessary. King Diogo I (ruled 1545-1561) allowed the Jesuit clergy to minister in the Congo starting in the 1540s. The Jesuits as in Maryland came with landlord ambitions and desired that the entire religious life of the country be put in their hands.[714] But the antinomian Africans gave control of the church to the native clergy. The Jesuits and the bishop of Sâo Tomé who supposedly had jurisdiction were restricted. This included a cut-off of their tithe income in the early 1550s. This resulted in 1555 in the Jesuit withdrawl from the country until 1619.[715]

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 151]

One of the elements characteristic of Maryland's BCCs which the Congo working class helped contribute was "inclusivity" as opposed to exclusivity. All aspects of the traditional African culture not directly contrary to fundamental doctrine was considered acceptable to Congo Catholics.[716] The Jesuit missionary Mateus Cordoso wrote in 1624 that "the Congo knew of the existence of the true God but had not had the opportunity to know, prior to their contact with Europe, of Jesus Christ."[717] The same was said by Andrew White, S.J. about the Maryland Indians. Maryland cosmological doctrine like Congo cosmological doctrine involved only a simple declaration of faith, such as might be found in the Apostle's Creed, in which one confessed belief in the existence of a single God, God's relationship to Jesus Christ, and belief in the mission and resurrection of Jesus.[718] The present-day Angolan descendants of the Congo Catholics, like the priests Joaquim da Rocha Pinto de Andrade and Joao da Cruz Chisseva-Kalutheho, defended the liberation theology tradition of their 17th-century ancestors. Andrade was a mestiço (mixed African and European parentage), who became chancellor of the archdiocese of Luanda in 1960. He was arrested by the Portuguese government for his work in behalf of the Movimento Popular de Libertacao de Angola, MPLA. In 1962 while in Aljube Prison in Lisbon he was chosen as the honorary president of the MPLA.[719] He was kept in prison for 14 years until released after the 1974 communist revolution in Portugal. At its September 1974 congress the MPLA chose Andrade to be its vice president.[720] Joaquim Adrade's brother, Mario de Andrade, was the president of the Angolan Communist Party (Partido Communista de Angola, PCA).[721]

Conclusion. Maryland's liberation theology tended to have a material and a spiritual aspect. Its antinomian spirituality promoted labor unity, internationalism, distributive (class) justice, and revolution against the mercantile theology of divide-and-conquer racism, national chauvinism, and religious sectarianism. Contemporary liberation theology, as noted in the discussion of Angola, follows the same internationalist tradition. James Connolly the Catholic leader of the 1916 Easter Rebellion in Dublin wrote in 1909 about the internationalism of the working class movement:

[CHAPTER SIX, 2011 ed., p. 152]

Every member of the investing classes is interested to the extent of his investments, present or prospective, in the subjection of Labor all over the world. That is the internationality of capital and capitalism. The wage worker is oppressed under this system in the interest of a class of capitalist investors who may be living thousands of miles away and whose very names are unknown to him. He is, therefore, interested in every revolt of labor all over the world, for the very individuals against whom that revolt may be directed may - by the wondrous mechanism of the capitalist system - through shares, bonds, national and municipal debts - be the parasites who are sucking his blood also. That is one the underlying facts inspiring the internationalism of labor and socialism.[722]

(Figure omitted)

Figure 6-1: Seventeenth-century Algonquian boatmakers (Va. State Library).

[CONCLUSION, 2011 ed., p. 153]

Chapter 7

Conclusion

The Maryland Catholics and their Basic Christian Communities (BCCs) had a liberation theology which they embodied in the golden rule that they established along the Potomac. Their theology and rule celebrated labor and successfully defended the value which they created. Their rule carried on the anti-profit morality of "Do unto others, as you would they would do unto you" (Lk. 6:31; Mt. 7:12) that Luke recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.[723] Ignatius Ellacuria, a Jesuit priest in El Salvador, before he was killed by it with US capitalist help, pointed out that the existing order in his country, where the economic, political, and religious resources were monopolized by the wealthy, was violence. Ellacuria called this violence a social sin. The Maryland Catholics waged a struggle that leveled in large measure this social sin along the Potomac.

Contemporary Catholic working people around the world have an interest in their traditions because these help them to rule their communities and resist capitalism. Ruling is a big part of their lives. In the 20th century a billion working people established communist societies. To the pope in 1998 Fidel Castro described the problems of capitalism and their solution by working-class rule in Cuba:

[CONCLUSION, 2011 ed., p. 154]

In your long pilgrimage around the world, you would have been able to see with your own eyes many injustices, inequalities and poverty; uncultivated lands and landless hungry farmers; unemployment, hunger, illness; lives that could be saved with little money, being lost for lack of it; illiteracy, child prostitution, 6-year old children working or begging for alms to survive; shanty towns where hundreds of millions live in unworthy conditions; race and sex discrimination; complete ethnic groups evicted from their lands and abandoned to their fate; xenophobia, contempt for other peoples; cultures which have been, or are currently being, destroyed; underdevelopment and usurious loans, unpayable and uncollectable debts, unfair exchange, outrageous and unproductive financial speculations; an environment being ruthlessly and perhaps helplessly destroyed; an unscrupulous weapons trade with disgusting lucrative intents; wars, violence, massacres; generalized corruption, narcotics, vices and an alienating consumerism imposed on peoples as an ideal model. . .

Castro went on in his welcome t the pope to comment, “What can we offer you in Cuba? People exposed to less inequalities and a lower number of helpless citizens; less children without schools, less patients without hospitals, and more teachers and physicians per capita than any other country in the world visited by the Holy Father; educated people you can talk to in perfect freedom with the certainty of their talent and their high political culture, their strong convictions and absolute confidence in their ideas; people that will show all due respect and consciousness in listening to you. Another country will not be found better disposed to understand your felicitous idea - as we understand it and so similar to what we preach - that the equitable distribution of wealth and solidarity among men and peoples should be globalized. Welcome to Cuba!”

[CONCLUSION, 2011 ed., p. 155]

In other countries Catholics have helped liberate large geographic areas from capitalism and set up parallel governments, as in Colombia, Peru, the Philippines, Nepal and Angola. Colombia was illustrative of a country with liberated areas and a parallel golden rule with the same characteristics as early Maryland. Among Colombia's independent, communist republics in the southern bloc were Marquetalia, Rio Chiquita, El Pato and Guayabero and in the northern (and eastern) bloc there was Bucaramanga in the mountains of the Santander region that borders Venezuela. For centuries the Catholic farming people of these regions farmed as a commune, conducted their own government and maintained a standing army. Communism for them was traditional. In the 1960s the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) began to lead the armed struggle in the southern bloc. In the northern bloc the National Liberation Army (ELN) led the struggle. One of the early members of the ELN was the Catholic priest, Camilo Torres (1929-1966). In the 1950s Torres studied in Europe and was impressed by the priest-worker movement in France and the ideal of sharing the destiny of the working class. Later a Catholic member of the Communist Party of Colombia (Partido Comunista de Colombia, PCC) had Torres baptize his son with the name "Lenin de Jesus" or Jesus's Lenin. Another ELN priest of 30 years service was Manuel Perez (1943-1998). He joined the liberation army in 1969 and helped build it from 60 to 5,000 fighters. He was also involved in its free public education, health care and police and court system.[724] He joined the ELN because capitalism was contrary to Catholicism. As set forth in the party's Simacota Manifesto, under capitalism:

Education is in the hands of traders who enrich themselves on the ignorance in which they maintain our people.

The soil is tilled by peasants who own nothing and who waste away their strength and their families' health for the benefit of oligarchs who live like kings in the cities.

The workers receive starvation wages and are subjected to the misery and humiliations of big industry, both foreign and national.

Democratic young intellectuals and professionals are obliged to place their talents at the service of the dominating class, or perish.

Small and medium-sized producers, both in the country and in the city are ruined by ruthless competition and credit monopoly in the hands of foreign capital and its local flunkies.

The riches of the Colombian people are looted by American imperialists.[725]

[CONCLUSION, 2011 ed., p. 156]

Another 20th-century illustration of a country with liberated areas and parallel golden rule was the Philippines. Some 25 priests operated as New Peoples Army (NPA) commanders or were Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) officials. Nick (Nato) Ruiz was one of the first priests to join the NPA in 1972. He was on the CPP executive committee of Bohol province, which like the Maryland Catholics helped bring land reform, health care, literacy and "quick and democratic justice" for working people. These were things he had tried, but failed to do as an individual priest.[726] Luis G. Jalandoni was another NPA priest-communist. He and the sugar workers in the province of Negros first took up arms in the 1970s because the landlords and their allies were killing, raping and stealing from the sugar workers and farmers.[727] The court and parliamentary system were controlled by the landlords and provided no relief. Jalandoni remarked, "If peasants and social reformers had to follow the rules made by landowners, they would never win."[728] Jalandoni was elected to a seat on the CPP central committee and was director of the National Democratic Front's (NDF) international office in the Netherlands. Other CPP priest-leaders were Edicio de la Torre of the NDF and Brendan Cruz, spokesperson for the Christians for National Liberation, which was part of the NDF.[729] Some of the Catholic CPP members were also leader in their BCCs. Beginning in 1980 BCCs operated in about one-third of the dioceses. It was not unusual for party groups to meet in churches. In the barrios communist nuns ran health and literacy programs.[730] CPP priests like Jose Torre celebrated people's masses complete with revolutionary songs and symbols, political homilies and saints who gave their lives for the people.[731]

In the 20th-century working people made progress not only in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe, but even in the belly of the beast. U.S. workers had their own parallel rule in their personal lives, families, trade unions, public education, public housing, public libraries, and social security system. They distributed food, clothing and other necessities according to the golden rule, which translated into distribution according to need. Media, culture, religion, sex, food, clothing and shelter were not for profit. Mindless consumerism was not made the purpose of life.

[CONCLUSION, 2011 ed., p. 157]

Seventeenth-century Potomac theology teaches that the golden rule did not start in the 20th century. More to the point, it suggests there should be no fear that it will not continue - even along the Potomac. For those beyond the Potomac, there is also value in looking at early American history. Twenty-first century worker rule in Asia, Africa and South America will find an ally even on the Potomac.

(Figure omitted)

Figure 7-1: Destroying suckers.[732]

Figure omitted)

Figure 7-2: Map of Maryland-connected Europe, Africa and America in the 1640s (not to scale).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 159]

Selected Bibliography

Primary Sources

This is a select bibliography, listing only the most frequently cited sources.

Allen, Cardinal William (d. 1594). An Admonition to the Nobility (1588), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 74.

Anderton, Lawrence. The English Nunne (St. Omer, English College Press, 1642).

Anonymous, A Confutation of the Earl of Newcastle's Reasons for taking under his command divers Recusants in the Northern Parts (London: n.p., 1643).

_____. A New Petition of the Papists for Toleration (London: n.p., 1641).

______. "Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore: Md.: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28.

_____. "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," St. Mary's City Commission, (manuscript, 27 boxes of men, 4 boxes of women, Annapolis: Hall of Records).

_____. Corpus Juris Canonici, Descretum Gratiani, emendatum una cum glossis, etc. (3 vols, Rome: Populi Romani, 1582); vol. 2, Decretales D. Gregorii IX suae integritati una cum glossis, etc.; vol. 3, Clemmentis V Constitutiones, etc.

_____. Good Catholic No Bad Subject, or a letter from a Catholic Gentleman to Mr. Richard Baxter, modestly accepting the challenge (London: John Dinkins, 1660).

_____. The Catholic Younger Brother (St. Omer, n.p., 1642).

Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle (Metaphysicam aristotelis commentaria), ed. John Rowan (Chicago: H. Regency, 1961), bk. 1, sect. 30.

_____. In Metaphysicam aristotelis commentaria, ed. M. R. Cathala (Rome: Collegii pontificia internationalis angelici, 1915).

_____. On the Governance of Rulers, ed. Gerald Phelan (Toronto: St. Michaels College Press, 1935).

_____. Questiones quodlibetales, ed. R. Spiazzi (Taurino: Casa Marietti, 1956).

_____. The Religious State (De perfectione vitae spiritualis), ed. F. J. Procter (St. Louis: B. Herder. 1902).

_____. Scriptum super sententiis magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. Pierre Mandonnet and M. Moos (4 vols., Paris: 1949).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 160]

_____. Summa Theologiae: Latin Text and English Translation, Introduction, Notes, ed. Thomas Gilby, O.P. (60 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), vols. 34-47.

Aristotle, Metaphysics in The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross (12 vols., London: Oxford University Press, 1952).

_____. The Politics, ed. Benjamin Jowitt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1885] 1920).

Arundell, Henry. Five Little Meditations in verse: . . . (2) Persecution No Loss; (3) On the text "God Chastiseth those whom He Loves"; (4) Considerations before the Crucifix; (5) Upon the Pains of Hell (London: Nathaniel Thompson, 1679).

Austin, John. The Christian Moderator (first part), or Persecution for religion condemned by the light of Nature, Law of God, Evidence of our own principles, with the explanation of the Roman Catholic belief, concerning these four points: their church, worship, justification and civil government (London: printed for J.J., published twice in 1651, twice in 1652 and three times in 1653).

Bagshaw, Christopher. A True Relation of the Faction begun by Fr. Persons at Rome (1601), ed. Thomas Law (London: D. Nutt, 1889).

Barclay, William. Of the Authority of the Popes: Whether and How Far Forth He has Power and Authority over Temporal Kings and Princes (1600, 1609) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 136.

Bellarmine, S.J., Robert. The Soul's Ascension to God, by the Steps of Creation ([1616] 1970), trans. Francis Young, in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 22.

_____. Meditations upon the Passion (1617), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 23.

Birch, Thomas (ed.). A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe, Secretary to Oliver and Richard Cromwell (7 vols., London: F. Gyles, 1742).

Blitzer, Charles (ed.). The Commonwealth of England: Documents of the English Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1641-1660 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1963).

Bolton, Edmund. The Cities Advocate, in this case, or a Question of honor and arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? Containing a clear refutation of the Pernicious common Error affirming it, swallowed by Erasmus of Roterdam, Sir Thomas Smith in his "Commonweal", Sir John Ferris in his "Blazon", Ralph Broke York Herald and others. With the copies or transcripts of three letters which give occasion of this work (Norwood, N.J.: W. J. Johnson, [1629], 1975).

Bowler, Hugh (ed.). London Sessions Records, 1605-1685 (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1934), vol. 34.

Browne, William H. (ed.), Archives of Maryland (72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972).

[Calvert, George, Lord Baltimore], L. B. The Answer to the Judgment of a Divine upon the Letter of the Lay Catholics, to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon (1631) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 55.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 161]

_____. The Answer to Tom-Tell-Truth: The Practice of Princes and the Lamentations of the Kirke (London: n.p., [1627], 1642).

Carroll, Kenneth L. "William Southby, Early Quaker Anti-Slavery Writer," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 89 (1965), 416.

Caussin, Nicholas. The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity [1626, 1634, 1638, 1650, 1663, 1664, 1678, 1898], 1977, trans. Basil Brooke in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 367.

Cavendish, William. A Declaration Made by the Earl of Newcastle . . . for entertaining some Popish recusants in his forces (London: n.p, 1642).

Cepari, S.J., Virgilio. The Life of B. Aloysius Gonzaga ([1627], 1974) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 201.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Cicero: The Speeches with an English Translation. . . De Lege Agraria, I, II, III, trans. John Freese (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1930).

_____. On Moral Obligation (De Officiis), trans. John Higginbotham (London: Faber, 1967).

_____. The Speeches with an English Translation. . . Pro M. Fonteio (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953).

_____. The Speeches with an English Translation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937), XVIII (Pro Flacco); XXXIII (Pro domo).

Coke, Roger. Justice Vindicated from the False Fusus put upon it by Thomas White (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1660).

Copley, Anthony (1567-1607). An Answer to a Letter of a Jesuited Gentleman, by his Cousin, Mr. A. C. Concerning the Appeal, State, Jesuits (1601) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 31.

_____. Another Letter of Mr. A. C. to his Dis-Jesuited Kinsman (1602) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 100.

Cotton, John. The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England (London: M. Simmons, 1645).

Davenant, William. Sir William Davenant's Gondibert: An Heroic Poem, ed. David Gladish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1651] 1971).

_____. The Temple of Love (London: n.p., 1635).

Firth, Charles H. and R. S. Rait (eds.). Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (3 vols., London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1911), vol. 1, p. 106 (March 27, 1643).

Foley, S.J., Henry (ed.). Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., [1875], 1966), vol. 3, pp. 371-373, 378-379, "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639, 1640).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 162]

Force, Peter (comp.). Historical Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, [1838], 1963).

Galliardi, Achilles. Jesus Psalter, 1575: An Abridgement of Christian Perfection (1625), D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 176.

Garcia II. "Letter to Dutch Governor in Brazil, Brunte" (February 23, 1643), Monumenta Missionaria Africana: Africa Ocidental ed. Antonio Brásio (15 vols., Lisbon: Agencia General do Ultramar, 1952-1988), IX, 14.

Gee, Henry (ed.). Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, [1896], 1921), pp. 562-564, Parliament "Clerical Disabilities Act" (16 Car. 1, cap. 27).

_____. "The Grand Remonstrance," p. 557.

_____. Mortmain Act (1279) (7 Edward 1, Stat. 2, Statutes of the Realm), p. 81.

G. K. (trans.). The Roman Martyrology (1627), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 222.

Gregory I, Pope. The Dialogues of S. Gregorie: The Four Books of Dialogue on the Life and Miracles of the Italian Fathers and on the Immortality of Souls [594] (1608), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 240.

_____. Morals on the Book of Job, trans. John Parker (3 vols., London: Series Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, J. Rivington Co., 1844).

_____. Pastoral Care in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, ed. Henry Davis, S.J. (Westminster, Md.: Newman Publishers, 1950).

_____. The Second Book of the Dialogues, trans. Cuthbert Fursdon, in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 294.

Hall, Clayton (ed.). Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), reproduces Andrew White, S.J., An Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore (1633), p. 6.

_____. Andrew White, S.J., A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), pp. 42-44.

Hawkins, Henry. The History of St. Elizabeth (1632), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 198.

Hawkins, Thomas. A View of the Real Power of the Pope and of the Priesthood over the Laity, with an account of How they use it (London: n.p., 1639, 1733).

Heigham, John (d. 1639). A Devout Exposition of the Holy Mass (1622), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 205.

Historical Manuscript Commission, House of Lords, Calendar, I, Sixth Report (London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1877), Appendix, pp. 109-113.

Holden, Henry. The Analysis of Divine Faith: or two Treatises of the Resolution of Christian Belief (Paris: n.p., [1652, 1655], 1658).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 163]

_____. A Letter to Mr. Graunt, Concerning Mr. White's treatise, "De Medio animarum statu" (Paris: n. p., 1661).

Horace. Horace: Epodes and Odes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).

Hughes, S.J., Thomas. History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), "Giles Brent," documents, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 130-131.

Jubbes, John. An Apology . . .touching a proceeding in a paper called Proposals for Peace and Freedom, offered from many worth citizens unto Commissioner General Ireton, for the concurrence of the army, after the prohibition of things of that nature (London: 1649).

Knott, S.J., Edward. Charity Mistaken, with the want whereof Catholics are unjustly Charged, for affirming that Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation (London: n.p., 1630).

LeJeune, S.J., Paul. "Hardships We Must be Ready to Endure when Wintering with the Savages," An Autobiography of Martyrdom: Spiritual Writings of the Jesuits in New France, ed. François Roustang, S.J. (St. Louis: B. Herder Co., 1964), p. 45.

Lessius, S.J., Leonardus. The Treasure of Vowed Chastity in Secular Persons (1621) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 214.

Livy. The Roman History written by T. Livius of Padua (London: Sawbridge, 1659).

Lloyd, William. The Late Apology in behalf of the Papists Re-printed and Answered, in behalf of the Royalists (London: n.p., 1674).

Loyola, Ignatius. The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, trans. George Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970).

_____. Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, ed. Louis Puhl, S.J. (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1951).

Lucian. Nigrinus in Six Dialogues of Lucian, trans. Sidney Irwin (London: Methuen, [180 A.D.] 1894).

Mason, Richard. Brother Angelus Francis, The Rule of Penance of St. Francis (Douay: English College Press, 1644).

Massinger, Philip. Believe as You List (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1907).

_____. The King and the Subject, later called The Bashful Lover, in Three New Plays: The Bashful Lover, etc. (London: Humphrey Moseley, 1655).

_____. The Guardian in Three New Plays. . . The Guardian (London: Moseley, [1633] 1655).

_____. The Maid of Honor (1630).

_____. A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. George Stronach (London: J. M. Dent, [1625] 1904).

Matthew, Tobie. A Missive of Consolation sent from Flanders to the Catholics of England (Louvain: n.p., 1647).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 164]

_____ (trans.). A Treatise of Patience, written by Father Francis Arias of the Society of Jesus, in his second part of the Imitation of Christ our Lord, translated into English with permission of Superiors ([1630, etc.], 1970), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 21.

Molina, Antonio de (d. 1619). A Treatise of Mental Prayer ([1617] 1970), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 15.

Montagu, Walter, Henrietta Maria, et al., A Copy of the Letter sent by the Queen Majesty Concerning the Collection of the Recusant Money for the Scottish War (London: n.p., [1639], 1640).

_____. Miscellanea Spiritualia: or, Devout Essays, the Second Part (London: John Crook, 1654).

_____. The Shepherds' Paradise: A Comedy Privately Acted Before the Late King Charles by the Queen's Majesty and Ladies of Honor (London: For John Starkey, [1632] 1659).

Moore, John. The Crying Sin of England, of not Caring for the Poor, wherein enclosure is arraigned, convicted, and condemned by the Word of God (London: n.p., 1653).

More, Cresacre (d. 1649). Meditations and devout discourses upon the Blessed Sacrament (1639), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 20.

Morejon, Pedro (d. 1634). A Brief Relation of the Persecution in the Kingdom of Japan (1619), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 213.

Morton, A. L. Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974).

Parker, Thomas. A True Copy of a letter Written by Mr. Thomas Parker, a Learned and Godly Minister in New England unto a member of the Assembly of Divines now at Westminster (London: n.p., 1644).

Persons, S.J., Robert. A Brief Discourse containing certain reasons why Catholics Refuse to go to Church (Douay: John Lyon, 1580).

_____. The Christian Directory: Guiding Men to Eternal Salvation, Commonly called the Resolution ([1582, etc.] 1970) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 41.

_____. First Book of the Christian Exercise, appertaining to resolution, ed. Edmund Bunny (1582).

_____. A Manifestation of the Great Folly and Bad Spirit of Certain in England Calling themselves Secular Priests, who Set Forth Daily Most Infamous and Contumelious Libels against Worthy Men of their Own Religion and Divers of Them their Lawful Superiors. By Priests Living in Obedience (1602) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 82.

_____. A Memorial of the Reformation of England, Containing Certain Notes, and Advertisements, which seem might be proposed in the First Parliament after God shall restore it to the Catholic Faith, ed. E. Gee (London: Richard Chiswel, [1596] 1690).

_____. "A Story of Domestic Difficulties," Miscellanea, ed. John H. Pollen, S.J. (London: Catholic Record Society), 2 (1906), 50.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 165]

_____. A Temperate Ward-Word to the Turbulent and Seditious Watch-Word of Francis Hastinges ([1601] 1970) in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 31.

Peter, Hugh. A Word for the Armie and two Words to the Kingdom (London: M. Simmons for G. Calvert, 1647).

Petty, William. Political Anatomy of Ireland in Charles Hull, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty (New York: A. M. Kelley, [1898], 1964), vol. 1, p. 151.

_____. Treatise on Taxes and Contribution, in Charles Hull (ed.), The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899).

Playford, John. The English Dancing Master (London: Schott, [1651] 1957).

Plato. Sophist in Platonis opera quae extant omnia (Paris: H. Stephanus, 1578).

Platus, S.J., Hieronymous. The Happiness of a Religious State, trans. Henry More, S.J., (1632), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 270.

Preston, Thomas. A New-Years Gift for English Catholics, or a Brief and Clear Explanation of the New Oath of Allegiance (1620), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 130.

_____. (Roger Widdrington), Roger Widdrington's Last Rejoinder to Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert's Reply Concerning the Oath of Allegiance, and the Pope's Power to Depose Princes (1616, 1633)in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 280.

Pseudo-Dionysius. The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, ed. John Parker (Merrick, N.Y.: Richwood Publishers, [1899] 1976).

Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, American and West Indies, ed. William N. Sainsbury, (40 vols., London: H.M. Stationary Office, 1860 - ), vol. 12, no. 71.

_____. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Reign of Charles I, 1625-1649 (23 vols., Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1871], 1967), ed. Mary Green.

_____. Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, 1643-1660 preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office, ed. Mary A. Green (5 vols., London: H.M. Stationary Office, Eyre & Spotteswoode, 1892).

Ribadeneyra, Pedro de (d. 1611). The Life of B. Father Ignatius Loyola (1616), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 300.

Robert, John ap. Apology for a Younger Brother ([1634] 1972), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 103.

Rodriquez, S.J., Alonso (Alfonso). Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtues, trans. Tobie Matthew and Basil Brooke (3 vols., Chicago: Loyola University Press, [1631] 1929).

_____. A Treatise of Humility (1632), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 347.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 166]

Rogers, D. M. (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977) (multiple volumes).

Rogers, Thomas (trans.). Of the Imitation of Christ: in three books, which are for Wisedome and Godlinesse most excellent by Thomas of Kempis (London: E.P., 1640).

Rushworth, John (ed.). "Grand Remonstrance," Historical Collections of Private Passages of State (8 vols., London: D. Browne, 1721), vol. 4, p. 438.

Rushworth, William. Rushworth's Dialogue, or, the Judgment of Common Sense in the Choice of Religion (Paris: n.p., 1640).

Serre, Jean Puget de la (d. 1665). The Sweet Thoughts of Death and Eternity (1632), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 142.

Servius. Ad Georgics (400 A.D.).

Strong, Leonard. Babylons Fall in Maryland, reprinted in Maryland Historical Magazine (Baltimore), 3 (September 1908), 7.

S. W. A Vindication of the Doctrine in Pope Benedict XII, his Bull, and the General Councils of Florence Concerning the State of Dependent Souls, wherein the purposes of Master White's lately maintained Purgatory is laid open (Paris: n.p., 1659).

Tacitus, Cornelius. The Annals, in The Works of Tacitus, Oxford Translation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1865).

_____. A treatise on the situation, manners, and inhabitants of Germany; and the life of Agricola (Warrington: J. Johnson, 1777).

Tertullian. The Apology in Social Thought, ed. Peter Phan (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984).

Thwaites, Reuben G. (ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (73 vols., Cleveland: Burrows Brothers, Co., 1896-1901), vol. 7, pp. 34-64; vol. 13, p. 123.

Wadsworth, James (trans.). The Civil Wars of Spain. . . by P de Sandoval (London: William DuGard, 1652).

Walwyn, William. The Just Defense of William Walwyn (May 30, 1649), reprinted in William Haller and Godfrey Davies, The Leveler Tracts, 1647-1653 (Gloucester: P. Smith, [1944] 1964).

______. The Writings of William Walwyn, ed. Jack R. McMichael and Barbara Taft (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989).

Warmington, William. A Moderate Defense of the Oath of Allegiance (1612), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 276.

Wentworth, Thomas. The Earl of Strafford's Letters and Dispatches, ed. William Knowler (London: W. Bowyer, 1739).

Weston, Richard (1591-1652). A Discourse of Husbandrie used in Brabant and Flanders Showing the Wonderful improvement of land there serving as a pattern for our practice in this Commonwealth (London: William DuGard, 1650).

White, S.J., Andrew. A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 31-40.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 167]

_____. An Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore (1633) in Hall, Narratives, p. 6.

White, Thomas. Apology for Rushworth's Dialogues, wherein the Exceptions of the Lords Falkland and Digby are Answered and the Arts of their Commended Daille discovered (Paris: Chez Jean Billain, 1654).

______. Blacklo's Cabal Discovered in Several of their Letters, ed. Robert Pugh (1610-1679), re-edited, T. A. Birrell (Farnborough, England: Gregg International Publishers, [1680], 1970).

______. A Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Paris: n.p., 1637, 1640, 1659).

______. The Grounds of Obedience and Government: Being the Best Account to All that has been Lately Written in Defense of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance (Farnsborough, England: Gregg International Publishers, [1649, 1655, 1659, 1685], 1968).

_____. The Middle State of Souls from the hour of death to the day of judgment (London: n.p., 1659).

______. Religion and Reason Mutually Corresponding and Assisting Each Other (Paris: n.p., 1660).

Wintour, John. A True Narrative Concerning the Woods and Iron-Works of the Forest of Deene, and how they have been Disposed since the year 1635, and a defense of Sir John Wintour (London: n.p., 1670).

_____. Sir John Wintour Vindicated from the Aspersion of Destroying the Ship-Timber of the Forest of Deene (London: n.p., 1660).

Wolfe, Don M. (ed.). Leveler Manifestoes (New York: Nelson and Sons, 1944).

Worthington, Thomas (ed.). Holie Bible: Old Testament, faithfully translated into English from the Latin by the English College of Dowai (1609), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vols. 265-266.

Secondary Sources

Adler, Doris. Philip Massinger (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987).

Allen, David. In English Ways: The Movement of Societies and the Transferal of English Local Law and Customs to Massachusetts Bay in the Seventeenth Century (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1981).

Allison, Anthony F. "A Question of Jurisdiction, Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon and the Catholic Laity, 1625-1631," 7 Recusant History (Bognor Regis, England), (1982-1983), 113-142.

Aston, Margaret. "Lollardy and Sedition, 1381-1431," Past and Present (Oxford),, no. 17 (1960), 1-44.

Aptheker, Herbert. Anti-Racism in U. S. History: The First Two Hundred Years (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1993), (quotes from and develops an aspect of the 1991 edition of this present study).

Axtell, James. "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine (Baltimore), 81 (1986), 1-5.

Barnes, Donald. A History of the English Corn Laws (London: A. M. Kelly, [1930], 1961).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 168]

Baylor, Michael G. Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte. Beiheft, Literaturbericht (Archive for reformation history Supplement, literature review), (Gütersloh, G. Mohn), (1994), vol. 23, p. 42, section 215 (discusses an earlier The Journal of Religious History, 1993) version of this essay).

Birrell, T. A. "English Catholics without a Bishop, 1655-1676," Recusant History (Bognor Regis, England), 4 (1958), 142-161.

Blackwood, B. G. The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, Cheltenham Society Series, 1978), no. 25.

Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973).

Bogen, David. “Research Notes and Maryland Miscellany: Mathias de Sousa: Maryland’s First Colonist of African Descent,” Maryland Historical Magazine (2001), vol. 96, pp. 68-85, (quotes from the 1996 edition of this present study).

Bontinck, François. La Lutte autour de la liturgie chinoise aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1962).

Borengässer, Norbert M. “Calvert Family History,” Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, (2000), vol. (band) 17, columns 214-218, p. 39 (cites an earlier Journal of Church and State, 1993 version of this present essay).

Bossy, John "Reluctant Colonists: The English Catholics Confront the Atlantic," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982).

_____. The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1975).

Boyajian, James C. Portuguese Trade in Asia Under the Hapsburgs, 1580-1640 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).

Bradley, Rosemary. "The Failure of Accommodation: Religious Conflict Between Presbyterians and Independents in the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1646," Journal of Religious History, 12 (June 1982), 23-47.

Bradley, S.J., Robert. "Blacklo and the Counter-Reformation: An Inquiry into the Strange Death of Catholic England," From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly, ed. Charles Carter (New York: Random House, 1965).

Breen, Timothy H. "The Non-Existent Controversy: Puritan and Anglican Attitudes on Work and Wealth, 1600-1640," Church History, 35 (1966), 281.

Burg, Richard. "The Bay Colony Retaliates: A Taste of Venom in Puritan Debate," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 38 (September 1969), 281-289.

Butler, Jon. "Thomas Teackle's 333 Books: A Great Library on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1697," William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 49 (July 1992), 450.

Campbell, Kenneth. The Intellectual Struggle of the English Papists in the Seventeenth Century, the Catholic Dilemma (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellon Press, 1986).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 169]

Challoner, Richard. 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).

Charlevoix, P. F. X. de. History and General Description of New France, trans. J. G. Shea (6 vols., Chicago: Loyola University Press, [1872] 1962).

Clancy, S.J., Thomas. "The Jesuits and the Independents: 1647," Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, 40 (1971), 72-88.

_____. Papist Pamphleteers: The Allen-Persons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England, 1572-1615 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964).

Cliffe, John T. The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (London: Athlone Press, 1969).

Cooper, J. P. "Social and Economic Policies under the Commonwealth," The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660, ed. G. E. Aylmer (London: Macmillan, 1972).

Cooper, Tim. Fear and polemic in seventeenth-century England: Richard Baxter and antinomianism (Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2001), (cites an earlier Journal of Religious History, 1993 version of this present essay).

Cross, Claire. "The Church in England: 1646-1660," The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660, ed. G. E. Aylmer (London: Macmillan, 1972), p. 113.

Crow, Steven. "Left at Libertie: The Effects of the English Civil War and Interregnum on the American Colonies, 1640-1660," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1974.

_____. "Your Majesty's Good Subjects: A Reconsideration of Royalism in Virginia, 1642-1652," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 87 (1979), 158-173.

Cruickshank, A. H. Philip Massinger (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1920).

Cushner, S.J., Nicholas. Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767 (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982).

Dainville, François de. L'Éducation des jésuites, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1978).

Dennis, Alfred. "Lord Baltimore's Struggle with the Jesuits, 1634-1649," American Historical Review, 1 (1900-1901), p. 121.

deSoto, Domingo. Deliberación en la causa de los pobres (Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Politicos, 1965).

Edwards, S.J. Francis (ed.). "Introduction," The Elizabethan Jesuits of Henry More (London: Phillimore, [1660] 1981).

Ellis, John T. Catholics in Colonial Maryland (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1964).

Evans, Eric. "Tithes" in Joan Thirsk (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1640-1750 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1985), vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 394.

Faillon, Etienne M. Histoire de la colonie française en Canada (3 vols., Montreal: 1866).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 170]

Falb, Susan. Advice and Ascent: The Development of the Maryland Assembly, 1635-1689 (New York: Garland Publishers, 1986).

Farrelly, Maura Jane. “Papist Patriots: Catholic Identity and Revolutionary Ideology in Maryland,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 2002, (quotes the 1996 edition of this essay).

Fausz, J. Frederick. The Secular Context of Religious Toleration in Maryland (Baltimore: Maryland Humanities Council, 1984).

Finn, Peter. "The Slaves of the Jesuits in Maryland," unpublished M. A. Thesis, Georgetown University, 1974

Firth, Charles H. Cromwell's Army: A History of the English Soldier During the Civil War, Commonwealth and the Protectorate (London: Meuthen, [1902] 1962).

Fitzmaurice, Edmond. Life of William Petty (London: J. Murray, 1895).

Flynn, Maureen. Sacred Charity: Confraternities and Social Welfare in Spain, 1400-1700 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).

Fogarty, Gerald. "The Origins of the Mission, 1634-1773," Maryland Jesuits: 1634-1833 (Baltimore: n.p., 1976), p. 23.

Freese, John. "Introduction," Cicero: The Speeches with an English Translation, . . . De Lege Agraria I, II, III (New York: Putnam, 1930).

Gaffney, James. Augustine Baker's Inner Light: A Study in English Recusant Spirituality (Scranton, Pa.: University of Scranton Press, 1989).

Gillow, Joseph (ed.). A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics from the Breach with Rome in 1534 to the Present Time (5 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1885-1902).

Gordan, Barry J. Economic Analysis Before Adam Smith: Hesiod to Lessius (New York: Macmillan, 1975).

Goubert, Pierre. The French Peasantry in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, [1982] 1986).

Greaves, Richard. "Revolutionary Ideology in Stuart England: The Essays of Christopher Hill," Church History, 56 (March 1987), 97.

Guibert, Joseph de. The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice, A Historical Study (Chicago: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1964).

Guilday, Peter. The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent: The English Colleges and Convents in the Low Countries, 1558-1795 (London: Longmans, 1914).

Gurevich, A. J. Categories of Medieval Culture (Boston: Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1985).

Habington, William. History of Edward the Fourth, King of England (London: Thomas Cotes, 1640).

Haigh, Christopher. "Anticlericalism and the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

_____. "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (London), 31 (1981), 138-139.

_____. "Revisionism, the Reformation, and the History of English Catholicism," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 35 (July 1984), 394-406.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 171]

_____. "The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

_____. The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Hall, David. The Antinomian Controversy, 1636-1638: The Documentary History (Middletown: Wesleyn University Press, 1968).

Harper, Lawrence. The English Navigation Law: A Seventeenth-Century Experiment in Social Engineering (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939).

Harper, Robert A. “Encyclopedia article on the State of Maryland,” Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (New York, New York: Scholastic Library Publishing, Inc., 2003, http://go.grolier.com (quotes from the 1996 edition of this present study).

Hart, Cyril. The Commoners of Dean Forest (Gloucester: British Publishing Co., 1951).

_____. Free Miners of the Royal Forest of Dean (Gloucester: British Book Co., 1953).

Havran, Martin. The Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1962).

Heerma van Voss, Lex and Marcel van der Linden (eds.), Class and Other Identities: Gender, Religion and Ethnicity in the Writing of European Labor History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2002), (quotes the 1996 edition of this present study).

Helmholz, R. H. Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Henson, Edward (ed.). The English College at Madrid, 1611-1767, (London: Catholic Record Society, 1929), vol. 39.

Hersche, Peter. “‘Klassizistischer’ Katholizismus Der konfessionsgeschichtliche Sonderfall Frankreich,” Historische Zeitschrift, (1996), vol. 262, pp. 357-389, (quotes from an earlier History of European Ideas, 1992 version of this present essay).

Hibbard, Caroline. "Early Stuart Catholicism: Revision and Re-Revisions," Journal of Modern History (Chicago), 52 (1980), 4-24.

Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714 (New York: Norton, [1961], 1980).

_____. The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill: Religion and Politics in Seventeenth-Century England (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986).

_____. "Debate: Parliament and People in Seventeenth-Century England," Past and Present (Oxford), no. 98 (1983), 157.

_____. The English Revolution: 1640 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1940).

_____. God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London: Dial Publishers, 1970).

_____. Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution Revisited (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), (quotes from an earlier Science and Society, 1993 version of this present essay).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 172]

_____. "Interpretation of the English Interregnum," Economic History Review (Welwyn Garden City, England), 8 (May 1938), 160.

_____. "The Norman Yoke," Democracy and the Labor Movement, ed. John Saville (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1954), pp. 21-23.

_____. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Schocken Books, 1967).

Hilton, Rodney. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (New York: Viking, 1973).

Hoffman, Richard. "Outsiders by Birth and Blood: Racist Ideologies and Realities around the Periphery of Medieval European Culture," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, ns. 6 (1983), 14-20.

Howell, Roger. "Reconsidering the Levelers: The Evidence of the Moderate," Past and Present (Oxford), no. 46 (1970), 77.

Hudson, Elizabeth. "The Catholic Challenge to Puritan Piety, 1580-1620," Catholic Historical Review, 77 (1991), 6.

Huehns, Gertrude. Antinomianism in English History with special Reference to the Period, 1640-1660 (London: Cresset Press, 1951).

James, Margaret. "The Political Importance of the Tithes Controversy in the English Revolution, 1640-1660," History: The Journal of the Historical Association (London), 26 (1941), 11.

Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), (cites an earlier version of this essay, www.angelfire.com/md/tobyterrar/colombia.html).

Jonkers, Engbert. Social and Economic Commentary on Cicero's Agraria Orationes tres (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963).

Kilcullen, John. “The Political Writings,” The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, ed. Paul V. Spade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 302-319.

Knox, Thomas (ed.). The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay (London: D. Nutt, 1878).

Kuntz, Paul. "The Hierarchical Vision of St. Roberto Bellarmino," Jacobs Ladder and the Tree of Life: Concepts of Hierarchy and the Great Chain of Being, ed. Marion Kuntz (New York: Plong, 1987).

Krugler, John D. English and Catholic: the Lords Baltimore in the seventeenth century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) (discusses the 1996 edition of this present study).

Kupperman, Karen. Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Lapomarda, S.J., Vincent. "The Jesuit Missions of Colonial New England," Essex Institute Historical Collections, 126 (April 1990), 109.

Law, Thomas. A Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between the Jesuits and the Seculars (London: D. Nutt, 1889).

Leyburne, George. The Douay College Diaries: 1598-1654, ed. Edwin Burton (London: Catholic Record Society, 1911), vol. 11.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 173]

Lindley, Keith J. "The Part Played by Catholics in the Civil War," Politics, Religion and the English Civil War, ed. Brian Manning (London: Edward Arnold, 1973).

Lockhart, James and Stuart Schwartz. Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Luria, Keith. Territories of Grace: Cultural Change in the Seventeenth-Century Diocese of Grenoble (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1991).

_____. "The Counter-Reformation and Popular Spirituality," Catholic Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupré and Don Saliers (New York: Crossroads, 1989), p. 104.

McAlister, Lyle. Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).

Machado, Jonatas. “Religious Liberty in America and Beyond: Celebrating the Legacy of Roger Williams on the 400^th Year of his Birth: Freedom of Religion, A View from Europe,” Roger Williams University Law Review (Spring 2005), vol. 10, p. 451 (cites an earlier Journal of Church and State, 1993 version of this present essay).

McDermott, Scott. Charles Carroll of Carrollton: Faithful Revolutionary (New York: Scepter, 2002), (cites an earlier Journal of Church and State, 1993 version of this present essay).

Magee, Brian. The English Recusants: A Study in the Post-Reformation Catholic Survival and the Operation of the Recusancy Laws (London: Burns and Oates, 1938).

Marotti, Arthur F. “The Intolerability of English Catholicism,” in Roger D. Sell and Anthony Johnson (eds.), Writing and Religion in England, 1558-1689: Studies in Community-Making and Cultural Memory (Burlington, VT.: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 47-69, (discusses an earlier Journal of Church and State, 1993 version of this present essay).

Meek, Ronald. Studies in the Labor Theory of Value (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1973).

Meyvaert, Paul. "Gregory the Great and the Theme of Authority," Spode House Review, (1966), 24.

Middleton, Richard. Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776 (3^rd edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, [1992] 2002), (cites the 1996 edition of this present study).

Moogk, Peter. "Reluctant Exiles: Emigrants from France in Canada before 1760," William and Mary Quarterly, 46 (1989), 478.

Morton, A. L. "Introduction," Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974).

_____ (ed.). Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974).

Mousnier, Roland. Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth-Century France, Russia, and China, trans. Brian Pearce (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).

Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1974).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 174]

O'Grady, Hugh. Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an Account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co., 1923).

O'Malley, John. "Renaissance Humanism and the Religious Culture of the First Jesuits," Heythrop Journal, 31 (1990), 473-478.

Oss, Adrian van. Catholic Colonialism: A Parish History of Guatemala: 1524-1821 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Palmer, Colin. Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976).

Parker, Geoffrey. The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1559-1659: The Logistics of Spanish Victory and Defeat in the Low Countries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

Perry, James. The Formation of a Society on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1615-1655 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), pp. 215-216.

Petersson, Robert T. Sir Kenelm Digby: The Ornament of England, 1603-1665 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1956).

Quitt, Martin. "Immigrant Origin of the Virginia Gentry," William and Mary Quarterly, 45 (1988), 643-644.

Raban, Sandra. Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279-1500 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

Reiffenstuel, Anaklet. Jus Canonicum Universum (5 vols. in 7, Paris: Ludovicum Vives, 1864-1870).

Rose, E. Elliot. Cases of Conscience: Alternatives Open to Recusants and Puritans under Elizabeth and James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

Rountree, Helen. Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990).

_____ (ed.). Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993).

Rushton, P. "The poor Laws, the Parish, and the Community in North-East England, 1600-1800," Northern History, 25 (1989), 151.

Saunders, A. C. de C. M. A Social History of Black Slaves and Freedmen in Portugal, 1441-1555 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

Scarisbrick, J. J. "Robert Person's Plans for the `True' Reformation of England," Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honor of J. H. Plumb, ed. Neil McKendrick (London: Europa, 1974).

_____. The Reformation and the English People (London: Oxford University Press, 1984).

Scholes, France C. Church and State in New Mexico, 1616-1650 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1937).

Schroeder, O.P., H. J. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with Translation (St. Louis: Herder Books, 1941).

Schwartz, Stuart B. Sugar Plantations in the Formation of Brazilian Society: Bahia, 1550-1835 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

_____. Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Seaver, Paul. The Puritan Lectureship: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1662 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 175]

Segundo, S.J., Juan Luis. The Christ of the Ignatian Exercises in the series, Jesus of Nazareth Yesterday and Today (New York: Orbis Pub. & Ediciones Christiandad, 1987), vol. 4.

Sell, Roger D. and Anthony Johnson (eds.), Writing and Religion in England, 1558-1689: Studies in Community-Making and Cultural Memory (Burlington, VT.: Ashgate, 2009) (quotes and develops material in an earlier Journal of Church and State, 1993 version of this present essay).

Sharp, Buchanan. In Contempt of all Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586-1660 (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1980).

Sharpe, James. "The People and the Law," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985).

Sharp, Kevin. Criticism and Compliment: the Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Shaw, Howard. The Levelers (London: Longmans, 1968).

Sheifs, S.J., W. Eugene. "Seventeenth-Century Legal Crisis in the Missions," The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America, ed. Richard Greenleaf (Tempe, Ariz.: Center for Latin American Studies, 1977).

Sheldon, Richard. Certain General Reasons, Proving the Lawfulness of the Oath of Allegiance (London: Felix Kyngston, 1611).

Southgate, Beverley C. "The Life and Work of Thomas White, 1598-1676," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1980.

_____. "Thomas White's Grounds of Obedience and Government, A Note on the Dating of the First Edition," NQ, 28 (1981), 208-209.

Stone, Garry. "Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger's St. John's," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1982.

Stone, Lawrence. "The Educational Revolution in England, 1560-1640," Past and Present (Oxford), 28 (1964), 80.

Strauss, Erich. Sir William Petty, Portrait of a Genesis (London: Bodleyhead, 1954).

Sullivan, Terry. The Church of the Empire Versus the Christian Church of North Africa, 312-430 AD (Denver, Colorado: Christian Radical Press, 2003), http://radicalchristianpress.org/default.aspx.

_____. The Roots of the Abortion: The Slaughter of Innocents in the American Empire (Denver, Colorado: Christian Radical Press, 2003, 104 pages), http://radicalchristianpress.org/default.aspx.

Swart, K. W. The Miracle of the Dutch Republic as Seen in the Seventeenth Century (London: H. K. Lewis, 1967).

Tawney, Richard. Business and Politics under James I: Lionel Cranfield as Merchant and Minister (New York: Russell & Russell, [1958] 1976).

Terrar, Edward. “A Seventeenth-Century Theology of Liberation: Some Antinomian and Labor Theory of Value Aspects of the English Catholic Laboring People's Beliefs During the Period of the English Civil War, 1639-1640,” The Journal of Religious History (Sydney, Australia), (June 1993), vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 297-321

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 176]

_____. "Catholic Ecumenism During America's Revolutionary Era," Journal of Religious Studies (Cleveland) (1988), vol. 14, pp. 102-152.

_____. "Episcopal-Roman Catholic Ecumenism and Church Democracy During North America's Revolutionary Era," Anglican and Episcopal History 56 (June 1987), pp. 163-185.

_____. "Gentry Royalists or Independent Diggers? The Nature of the English Catholic Community in the Civil War Period of the 1640s," Science and Society (1993), vol. 57, pp. 313-348.

_____. "Religious Freedom in the American Colonial Era from the Perspective of Race, Class and Gender: The Contribution of the New Social History," Epoche: Journal of the History of Religions (Los Angeles, California: 1986), vol. 14, pp. 71-137.

_____, "Repenting the Quincentennial? A Study in Maryland Catholic History," Journal for Peace and Justice Studies (1992), vol. 4, pp. 143-165.

_____. "Social Beliefs among English Catholic Gentry during the Civil War Period of the 1640s," Paradigms: Theological Trends of the Future (1991), vol. 7, pp. 1-33.

_____. Social, Economic, and Religious Beliefs among Maryland Catholic Laboring People During the Period of the English Civil War, 1639-1660 (San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1996)

_____. "Social Ideas among Post-Reformation Catholic Laboring People: The Evidence from Civil War England in the 1640s," History of European Ideas (1992), vol. 14, pp. 665-694.

_____. "Some Religious Roots of the Eighteenth-Century Democratic Revolutions," NST: Nature, Society and Thought (1991), vol. 4 (1991), pp. 127-150.

_____. "Was there a Separation between Church and State in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England and Colonial Maryland?" Journal of Church and State (1993), vol. 35, pp. 61-82.

Thirsk, Joan (ed.). The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1640-1750 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1985), vol. 5, part 2.

_____. "Plough and Pen: Agricultural Writers in the Seventeenth Century," Social Relations and Ideas. . . Essays in Honor of R. H. Hilton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Thomas, Keith. The Ends of Life: Roads to Fulfillment in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), (cites an earlier The Journal of Religious History, 1993 version of this present essay).

Thornton, John. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1680 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

_____. "The Development of an African Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Kongo, 1491-1750," Journal of African History, 25 (1984), 147-148.

Todd, Margo. Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Tumbleson, Raymond. Catholicism in the English Protestant Imagination: Nationalism, Religion and Literature, 1660-1745 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1998), (quotes from the 1996 edition of this present study).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2011 ed., p. 177]

Underdown, David. Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Wake, Joan. The Brudenells of Deene (London: Casell, 1954).

Walker, John. "Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law," An Ungovernable People: The English and their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. John Brewer (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1980).

Warren, Benedict. "The Ideas of the Pueblos of Santa Fe," The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America, ed. Richard Greenleaf (Tempe: Arizona State University Press, 1977).

Waugh, W. T. "The Great Statute of Praemunire," English Historical Review, 37 (1922), 193-194.

Williams, Michael E. St. Alban's College Valladolid: Four Centuries of English Catholic Presence in Spain (New York: St. Martins, 1986).

Witkowski, Monica C. “‘Justice without Partiality’: Women and the Law in Colonial Maryland, 1648-1715,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 2009 (quotes the 1996 edition of this essay).

Wood, Ellen M. Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).

Zakai, Avihu. "Religious Toleration and Its Enemies: The Independent Divines and the Issue of Toleration During the English Civil War," Albion, 21 (Spring 1989), 1-7.

(Figure omitted)

Figure 8-1: Old St. Pauls, London. The Catholic architect, Inigo Jones (d. 1651) built an addition to this Protestant Cathedral. Leonard Calvert during the 1640s kept a picture of it on his wall in Maryland.[733]

(Figure omitted)

Figure 8-2: Maryland Indian Locations in the Seventeenth Century.[734]

[INDEX, 2011 ed., p. 179]

INDEX

Abortion, 54

Act of Grace (1634), 115

Africa(ns), 1, 32, 71, 154, Angola, 115, Congo, 115, 149, imperialism, 147, Maryland, 91, Movimento Popular de Libertacao de Angola, MPLA, 151, Northern, 33, Portugal, 148, slavery, 115

Agriculture (agrarian), class solidarity, 58, collective, 58, 120, common land, 59, common warehouses, 50, corn, 41, customs, 47, dignity, 31, economics, 9, migration, 65, monastic estates, 20, patron saints, 3, Peru, 68, Philippines, 156, prosperity, 148, reform, 15, 18, 20, 25, 65, reform (Czechoslovakia), 120, reform (lex agraria), 17, rights, 68, sharecropping, 69, small farmers, 25, subsistence, 70, sugar, 116, theology, xx, tobacco, 41

Alcohol, capitalism, 106, regulations, 74

Algonquian, 143

Anarchism, 85

Anglesey, Wales, 32

Annapolis, internationalism, 143, rent rebellion, 94

Anti-Catholicism, xiii, fine, xviii, Guy Fawkes Day, xvii, lack of, 15, 23, 26, 38, 90, 93, 95, 97, 102, 110, 112, 116, 129, 131, 138, Oath of Allegiance, Obedience and Supremacy, xviii, penal laws, xvii, sequestration, xvii, taxes, xix

Antinomianism, 11, 16, 30, 32, agrarian reform, 65, assembly, 86, collective, 85, contract workers, 78, debt default, 72, free will, 14, government, 88, judiciary, 96, judiciary (law unto self), 96, land recording, 68, legalism, 14, Maryland courts, 97, Massachusetts, 90, monarchy, 136, praeumnire, 109, rent strike, 66, 68, spirit, 86, subsistence farming, 71

Assembly (Maryland), absolute lord, 87, alcohol regulations, 74, antinomian, 86, code, 82, compared with Parliament, 93, contract workers, 78, corn laws, 72, defense budget, 100, elected, 88, engrossing regulations, 59, 74, episcopacy, 139, fees (public officials), 97, forestalling regulations, 59, 74, George Calvert, 139, hoarding regulations, 59, 73, independence from Crown and Parliament, 98, judiciary act, 96, land patenting regulations, 68, oath of secrecy, 88, perogative jurisdiction rejected, 68, praemunire, 109, revolutionary, 93, revolutionary (1644-1646), 92, royal commission denounced (1644), 89, shipping regulations, 76, taxes, 98, tobacco regulations, 76, town meeting, 86, wide franchise, 103, worker domination, 87

Atheism, vii, 37

Barbados, rebellion, 79

Basic Christian Community(ies), (BCCs), vii, 1, 6, 47, 65, 105, 134, 150, 153, Africa, 149, Bible study, 151, clergy, xxi, 7, 8, 122, 125, 128, 130, 131, England, 2, Indians, 38, 145, internationalism, 142, laity, 46, laity control, 120, Md. locations, 41, Mexico, 142, Philippines, 156

Benedictines, domestic chaplains, 126, work and pray, 104

Bible, 3, 40, 1 Co. 12, 124, 1 Co. 7:7-8, 32-35, 8, 1 Kings 7:13-47, 29, 1 Kings 8, 131, 2 Chronicles 2:14, 29, 2 Th. 3:10, 9, 49, Acts 2:42-47, 18, Acts 10:34, x, Acts 2:44-45, 153, Acts 4:32-35, 153, Acts 4:34, 61, Acts of the Apostles, 31, 59, 103, 153. class system rejected, 101, Douay, 131, Ecclesiasticus, 29, Ecclesiasticus 38:34, 2, Galatians 2, 14, Genesis 4:20, 3, Genesis 4:22, 29, Genesis 9:6, 72, gentry preferences, 128, Hebrews 6:3, x, instruction, 151, Lk. 6:3, x, Lk. 6:31, 153, Macabees 4:1, 132, Mexico, 142, Mt. 23:27-28, xii, Mt. 5:23-24, 58, Mt. 7:12, 153, Mt. 7:16, 20, 57, primogeniture, 19, rights, 65, Romans 13:1, 57, Romans 6:1, 14, vernacular, xv, 48, 142, Wisdom, viii, women, 10,

Brahmins, Jesuits, 123

Brainwashing, 153

Brazil, 1, 38, 149, revolution, 95

Calvinism, 114

Canada, 116, missionaries, 126, settlement policy, 80

Canary Islands, 116

Cape Verde, bishops, 116

Capitalism, vii, Biblically rejected, 3, blasphemy, 60, censorship, ix, China (drug addiction), 117, class, 50, clergy, 105, consumerism, 106, 154, culture, xi, engrossing, 59, environmental damage, 154, forestalling, 59, gambling, 106, genocide, 72, gospel, 117, history, xiii, xv, hoarding, 59, impulse control, 106, intellectuals & professionals, 155, Ireland, 21, leveled, 91, 103, 148, London, 72, 76, 93, luxury goods, 106, media, 106, murder, 71, Presbyterians, xvii, profit, 106, prostitution, 154, psychology, 56, 106, racism, 27, religion, 27, Stuart, 22, transportation, 107, usury, 154, view of labor, 9, 27, weapons trade, 154, xenophobia, 154

Capuchins, Africa, 150

Catholic(s), church government, 149, church offices (Congo), 150, clericalism, xix, Congo, 149, defined, xx, demography, 1, 24, diplomatic leverage, 150, gentry, 25, 26, Indians, 38, levelers (Maryland), 90, liberators, 98, liberty, xv, 105, literature, 2, 12, liturgy, 26, Maryland assembly, 86, 95, 97, music, 4, Oath of Allegiance, xix, official anti-communism, 153, partial conformers, xix, 1, priest-worker movement, 155, Protestant lack of bias, xv, 7, 15, 23, 26, 38, 86, 90, 91, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 102, 105, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 129, 131, 133, 138, 140, recusant, xix, 1, social life, 40, taxes, xix, tenantry, 18, 23, treason allegations, 98, worker politics, 26

Cattle, 80

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 107

Charity, 52

Children, ix, 6, 41, 44, 47, 54, 71, 125, 127, 143, 154

China, Confucianism, 146, liturgy, 117, Ming Dynasty, 123, unequal treaties, 117

Civil War, 15, English, vii, Maryland, 47, 86, 88, 92, prerogative courts abolished, 96, proprietor’s side-switching, 88

Civilization, European, xii, Roman, xii, western, 56

Class, 35, __less society, 69, Africa, 148, capitalism, 50, conflict, xiii, Congregational church, 133, education, 127, historiography, xiii, Indians, 142, 145, justice, 52, nobility, 63, obedience, 85, 134, peerage leveled, 103, Portugal, 148, solidarity (Maryland), 55, 58, struggle, vii, xi, 5, 31, 36, 101, 105, thievery, 66, 108, working __, vii, 1, 100, 103

Clergy, absentee, 122, Benedictine, 104, capitalist, 105, Capuchin, 150, charity, 52, class bias, 8, 50, 125, 128, demography, 6, diet, 8, domestic chaplains, xix, 126, drones, 111, excommunication, 111, 113, 116, Franciscan, 37, gentleman, 67, glebes, 122, guilds, 29, hierarchy, 51, Inquisition, 114, Ireland, 141, Jesuits, 37, 105, John Bull (communist), 101, landlords, 6, 52, 67, 106, Latin America, 106, lifestyle, 8, Maryland, 47, 65, mass legacies, 113, migration office, 37, military, 107, mortmain, 107, native African __, 150, ordered, 2, pastoral legislation, 122, pastoral ministry, xxi, patron saints, 26, praemunire, 109, priest-communist, 156, Protestant, 38, purgatory bequests, 110, secular, 2, 62, 122, spiritual directors, 129, tithes (lack of), 103, 122, wages, 6, will writing, 111, working class __, 6

Coal miners, 25

Code, Calvert’s __ rejected, 120

Colombia, communism, 154, Partido Comunista de Colombia, PCC, 155

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, xi

Commonwealth, 62

Commun(ism)(ist), xii, 31, __ party of the Philippines, 155, Acts of the Apostles, 59, 104, Bible, 153, China, 117, Christian, 11, Colombia, 154, community of goods, 59, Czechoslovakia, 120, health care, 104, India, 53, Italian __ party, 55, job security, 104, John Bull (priest), 101, Maryland, 83, 103, monasticism, 59, 104, nuns, 54, Partido Communista de Angola (PCA), 151, Peru, 57, religious orders, 104, Rome, 18, saints, 156, Spanish comuneros, 123

Commutative justice, 51, 62

Comuneros (Spain), 123, 137

Congregational church, class divisions, 133

Conoy, 45, land beliefs, 50, spirituality, 130

Consumerism, 55, 156, capitalism, 154, luxury goods, 149

Convents, 118, 127

Corn, 41, assimilation, 146

farming, 42, rationing, 73

Corporations, 20

Cosmology, 142, 146, 151, landlord, 5, mystery, 84, Peruvian Indians, 13, providence, 14

Council of Trent, 34, 115, pastoral reform, 122

Courts, 68, church, 112, church (abolished), 133, lack of __, 69, probate (clerical), 116

Credit-based economics, 149

Cuba, golden rule, 107, health care, 54

Czechoslovakia, 120

Day care, 55

Debtors, 16, 91, 113, capitalism, 106, 155, church courts, 112, no imprisonment of __, 103, uncollectable, 154

Delaware, Fort Christiana, 71, New Sweden, 143

Demography, 1, 11, 24, Indians, 39

Maryland, 37, 38

Depression, 44, 66, 82

Diet, 41, corn, 41, worker, 8

Distributive (class) justice, 51

Dominicans, 34

Donatists, 33

Drama, 47, court life, 138

Dutch (Holland), 41, 60, 149, __ West India Company, 102, Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654), 93, capitalists, 95, Maryland embassy, 137, Maryland trade, 92, 100, refuge, 112, Republic of the Seven United Provinces's Independence War, 48, tobacco tax, 101, war, 48

Economics, agrarian, 9, bankruptcy, 24, 72, Bristol merchants, 89, capitalist, 27, classical, 8, communism, xii, commutative justice, 51, 61, 62, consumer goods, 75, consumerism, 55, contract workers, 78, cooperation, 60, 62, corporations, 20, credit-based, 149, debt, 24, 91, debt default, 72, depression, 44, 66, 82, distributive justice, 51, Dutch trade, 100, enclosures, 24, engrossing, 59, 74, farm income, 43, finance, 25, forestalling, 59, full employment, 59, health care, 57, hoarding, 59, housing, 57, 66, imperialism, 38, imperialism (proprietor), 100, Indian collectivism, 50, Indians, 45, 145, individualism, 55, 62, inequality, 66, internationalism, 152, iron law of wages, 70, job training, 59, just price, 52, 61, labor theory of value, x, 50, 85, labor value, 30, 37, 61, leveling, 24, liberalism, 70, luxury goods, 149, market days, 40, market farming, 42, 82, market freedom, 63, market restrictions, 60, Maryland, 41, Merchant Adventurers monopoly, 89, monopoly, vii, 20, 25, 38, 50, 75, 85, 92, mortgage, 72, Navigation Acts, 93, opportunity, 66, parliamentary merchants, 89, patents, 20, pelts (monopoly), 77, 145, planned __, 59, poverty, 66, profit system, 106, prosperity, 148, rationing, 73, rent strike, 23, 87, rights, 30, Royalist Bristol, 89, security, 55, 59, self-sufficiency, 77, servants, 45, sharecropping, 70, slavery, vii, ix, socialism, 60, socialized regulations, 54, subsidized manufacturing, 60, subsistence, 41, surplus value, 11, 18, taxes, 18, Thomas Aquinas, 50, 63, tobacco monopoly, 21, tobacco trade, 20, token almsiving, 52, trade restrictions, 60, unemployment, 66, usury, 33, 154, violence, 153, wages, 45, 66, 69, worker, 2, 9, workhouses, 59, World Bank, 53, Ecuador, 71, Quito (bishops), 115

Education, Africa, 149, American, 27, capitalist, 127, 155, catechetical lectures, 47, catechism, 138, communist (Colombia), 155, Cuba, 154, Czechoslovakia, 121, Douai, xix, Europe, 2, Georgetown University, 145, illiteracy, 154, imperialist, 141, Indians, 145, Ireland, 114, Jesuit, 6, 14, 114, Jesuit colleges, 126, Jesuit curriculum, 127, Jesuit tutors, 125, landlord, 6, 18, Philippines, 156, Poland, 117, privatized, 53, Spain, 50, Thomistic, 50, tokenism, 57, University of Salamanca, 52, women, 82

Egalitarianism, 123

Employment, full, 55, Poland, 118

security, 55

Enclosures, 66, lack of __, 103, leveled, 24, 59

England, Bristol (royalist), 88, Britons, 17, 32, county committee, 19, Oxford (royalist), 88, peasant revolts, 17, port of London, 88, schism, 109, Teutonic-Saxon, 141

Engrossing, outlawed, 59, 74, 87

Environment, damage, 154

Episcopacy, 33, abolished, 133, Africa, 150, animosity against, xiii, capitalism, 109, China, 117, costs, 112, Czechoslovakia, 121, German, 121, harpies, 112, High Commission, 112, Hungarian, 120, lack of __, 103, landlords, 52, 120, leveled, 103, Maryland prohibition, 110, 139, Poland, 117

prohibited, 115, Scotland, xv,

servility, 109, slavery, 115

Europe, background to Maryland, 1, 35

Family, capitalism, 32, 85, capitalist, 10, class justice, vii, clerical abuse, 115, economics, 58, farming, 42, gentry religion, 126, labor, 2, 29, 47, patriarchy (monarchy), 120, racism, 135, 137, 139, religion, 8, social welfare, 58, 74, values, 140, values (primogeniture), 119

Farm(s)(ing), corn, 41, 42, crops, 41, 44, grain, 45, income, 43, landless, 154, lifestyle, 41, lives, tock, 44, market, 66, 82, pelts, 45, productivity, 44, squatters, 83, subsistence, 44, 65, 70, tobacco, 41, 42, women, 42

Feast days, 4, 26, 40, 47, 81, worker, 46

Feudal servitude, 30

Fishing, monopoly, 20

Flanders, 48, France, 114, Hapsburg, 108

Florida, Spain, 37

Forestalling, outlawed, 59, 74

France, bishops, 116, Canada, 80, 126, 145, economic monopoly, 50, imperialism, 75, mercenaries, 140, priest-worker movement, 155, Revolution (pastoral reform), 122

Franciscans, 34, 37

Genealogy, 29

Gentry, beliefs, 126, puritan, 129, racism, 27, theology, 34, virtues (humility, obedience), 132, writers, 32

Germany, xi, 15, episcopacy, 120, mercenaries, 123, merchants, 124

Ghent, 107

God, antinomian, 13, Holy Spirit, 12, landlord, viii, 27, 30, 33, 36, 48, 120, 132, 136, 137, law, 18, missionary, 150, mystery, 84, predestination, 14, reign, 2, 7, 19, worker, ix, 2, 39, 57, 72

Golden rule, x, 16, 18, 24, 26, 36, 52, 85, 87, 88, levelers, 103, summarized, 103

Gospel, 51

Government, anti-monopoly regulations, 59, antinomian, 88, assembly, 45, 59, assembly days, 40, church (Congo), 149, church courts (leveled), 112, commonwealth, 60, 62, county committee, 19, Crown, 76, democracy, 139, divine, 135, economic monopolies, 21, fees (public officials), 97, finance, 25, governor, 67, 89, internationalism, 152, labor dominated, 85, 140, laity control of church __, 120, manors, 19, Maryland, 85, Massachusetts compared to Maryland, 19, national chauvinism, 141, non-governmental organizations, 53, Parliament, 20, 22, Parliament compared to Maryland Assembly, 87, patents, 20, perogative jurisdiction rejected, 68, place-seeking, 19, planned economy, 59, privy council, 117, proprietor’s patronage, 88, proprietor’s prerogatives, 87, provincial secretary, 86, public service (gentry), 48, records, 44, royalist commission (1644), 88, secretary, 88, socialized regulations, 54, Spanish party, 21, Stuart monarchy, 19, town meeting, 86

Grace, 12, 14, 139

Grand Remonstrance (1641), 25, 60, 99, church courts, 112

Greece, Aristotle, 9, 18

Guatemala, Indians, 145

Guilds, 29

Guy Fawkes Day, xvii

Hapsburg, Charles V, 124, church courts, 113, clergy, 106, 133, Czechoslovakia, 120, Duke of Alva, 108, empire, 21, Flanders, 108, imperialism, 22, 106, Jesuits, 107, Latin American, 106, mercemaries, 123, Mexico, 113, Sicily, 108, Spanish, 48, 118

Hapsburg-Valois Wars (1521-1544), 109

Health care, 53, abortion, 55, Colombia, 155, communist, 104, Cuba, 154, Poland, 117, privatized, 53, socialized, 55, tokenism, 57

History, capitalist, xi, local, xiii, siege, xv

Hoarding, outlawed, 59, 73

Homelessness, 53

House of Lords, non-elected, 88

Housing, capitalist, 106, communist, 104, Indian, 146, Poland, 118, public, 156, shortage, 66, socialized, 55

Humanism, secular, xiii

Hungarian church, 120

Idealism, 34

Imperialism, vii, 32, 70, 100, Africa, 147, 148, British, 38, France, 75, Hapsburg, 22, 133, Hernando Cortes, 124, Normans, 109, 120, 136, Portugal, 115, 148, Roman, 109, 128, Spain, 141

Independents (parliamentary), xv, xvii, xviii, 133

India, Brahmins, 123, Congress party, 53, Hinduism, 146

Indians, Algonquian, 40, 126, Anacostian, 130, assimilation, 38, Catholic, 38, class, 145, class division, 143, class-struggle, 142, commercial war, 100, compared to Irish, 141, Conoy, 40, 45, 115, 130, 143, cosmology, 142, demographics, 39, diseases, 144, education, 141, Guatamala, 145, Hurons, 126, 143, internationalism, 147, Iroquois, 143, languages, 39, Maryland, 37, Monacans, 143, multilingual, 142, Narragansett, 90, Piscataways, 143, Powhatans, 41, 143, Quebec, 145, slave-holding, 143, spirituality, 38, Susquehannocks, 46, 77, 100, 143, Tzotzil-speaking (Mexico), 141, Virginia, 142, wage work, 45, women, 40, work life, 42, 45

Individualism, economic, 55, criticized, 56

Inquisition, xv, 112, 114

Intellectuals, capitalism, 155

Intelligence (national security), Central Intelligence Agency, 107, Poland, 118

Internationalism, 143, 152, Indians, 147, xenophobia, 154

Ireland, 1, 38, aborigines, 141, Act of Grace (1634), 115, bishops, 115, capitalism, 21, Catholic Collection, 100, clergy, 141, Easter Rebellion (1916), 152, George Calvert, 21, Indian comparison, 141, interracial marriage, 141, Kinsale, 76, language, 141, mercenary army, 22, Mexico, 114, migrants, 70, military, xvii, 114, Parliamentary conquest, xvi, 22, peerage, 21, penal laws, 115, Statutes of Kilkenny (1366), 141, Irish Parliament, 21, 140, House of Commons, 76

Italy, 55, 109, Christian Democratic party, 55, economic monopoly, 50

Jamestown, Va., 37

Japan, missions, 142

Jesuits, 63, beliefs, 128, China (Mandarians), 123, colleges, 126, Congo, 150, domestic chaplains, xix, Dominus ac Redemptor, xx, education, 14, 127, England (bishops), 116, expulsion from England, 133, farm administration, 105, gentry beliefs, 126, Hapsburg imperialism, 107, India, 123, land disputes with proprietor, 107, landlords, 105, Maryland, 65, 105, Mexico, 37, pastoral legislation, 122, snobism, 125, Spain, xviii, 50, theology, viii

Jews, xiv, xv, Spain, 27

Just price, 61

Justice, commutative (individualistic), 51, Kent Island, 45, Labor(er), vii, 39, __ theory of value, x, 8, 23, 105, clergy bias against, 125, clerical contempt for, 124, God as__, 2, Irish, 79, manual, 31, 48, Messalians contempt for __, 129, obedience, 79, patron saints, 4, property rights, 84, reform, 78, skills, 3, trades, 3, usufruct, 39, 49, 68, value, 37, 48, 61, 85, 96, 124

Laity, BCCs, 46, contol of church, 120

Lancashire, 1, 5, 15, 24, 74

Land(lords), 4, __ recording (patenting), 68, 21-year leases, 91, Catholic, 18, clergy, 67, common __, 49, 59, 68, comuneros (Spain), 123, confiscated, 59, 102, cosmology, 5, crown patent, 68, Czechoslovakia, 120, economic philosophy, 18, education, 18, enclosure, 66, episcopacy, 120, Gaelic, 68, Gaelic customs, 49, genealogy, 29, Hapsburg, 120, headrights, 66, Indian, 49, Indian __ title, 50, Jesuits, 105, leveled, 23, 91, 102, Massachusetts, 69, monopoly, vii, morals, 30, mortgages, 16, mortmain, 120, negative views of tenantry, 18, Normans, 120, obedience (fealty), 68, paramilitary (Philippines), 156, parasites, 9, patents, 66, politics, 18, Protestant, 18, public service, 48, quit rent, 66, racism, 28, rent, 66, 94, rent strike, 11, 18, 66, Roman, 16, sharecropping, 70, speculation, 49, squatters, 68, 97, 148, theology, 5, 30, usufruct, 39, 49, 68

Latin America, 32

Law, Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, 110, antinomian (__ unto self), 96, antinomian (Maryland courts), 97, assembly __, 86, biblical, 65, blasphemy, 113, bulls (papal), xiv, 110, canon, 18, 106, 119, canon (prohibited), 109, capitalist, 66, Christ’s __, 66, church courts, 110, 113, church courts (leveled), 112, Civil Constitution of the Clergy (France), 122, common, xiv, 25, 113, corn __s, 72, costs, 112, court days, 40, 44, courts, 68, crimen maiestatis, 11, debt cases, 113, ecclesiastical immunities, 119, English prerogative courts abolished, 96, excommunication, 111, false decretals, 120, forest, 25, 26, fundamental, 136, God’s __, 18, Hebrew, 11, Inquisition, 112, 114, international (jus gentium), 29, 32, judiciary act, 96, king’s will, 138, marriage, 116, marriage (interracial), 115, Maryland charter, 110, Maryland code, 87, Mexico (church courts), 113, mortmain, 107, 118, 120, Mosaic, 85, natural, 16, 18, 29, 60, Number 34 (1638 code), 109, Oath of Allegiance, xix, Oath of Allegiance, Obedience and Supremacy, xviii, pastoral, 122, penal, xiv, xvii, 116, people’s __, 87, perogative jurisdiction rejected, 68, Pharisees, 11, praemunire, xiv, 109, 117, probate, 112, probate courts (clerical), 116, proprietor leveled by courts, 97, proprietor’s __ rejected, 86, Regnans in Excelsis, xx, rights, 18, 63, Roman, 11, 18, 109, Royal, 25, simplified and inexpensive, 103, squatters, 97, Statutes of Kilkenny (1366), 141, Thirty-Nine Articles, 110, tithes, 118, will probate, 112, women, 10

Legalism, 14

Level(ing)(ers), xv, 13, 15, 30, Diggers, 103, golden rule, 103, Maryland, 83, 102, program, 59

Liberty, xv, 132, landlords, vii, leveling, 24, religious, 105, spiritual, 12

Libraries, Czechoslovakia, 121, public, 156

Lifestyle, pretensions (clergy), 116, royal court, 136

Liturgy, 122, baroque, 38, 126, China, 117, communist (Philippines), 156, cycle, 47, Malabar rite, 123, Maryland, 105, mass, 58, worker, 46, 105

Lollards, 122

Love, neighbor, 57, Neo-Platonic, 132

Lutheran split, 113

Luxury goods, 149

Manufacturing, 66

Market, days, 40, farming, 42, 66, free, 61, 63, monopolized, 61

pelt, 77, restrictions, 60, 73

Marriage, Indian, 143, interracial, 115, 130, interracial (Ireland), 141

laws, 116

Maryland, anarchism, 85, Annapolis, 94, assembly, 45, books, 40, charter, 86, 96, 110, Civil War, 47, class solidarity, 58, classless society, 19, code, 87, collective agriculture, 58, compared to Africa, 150, compared to Diggers, 103, compared to England, 68, 87, 100, 103, 140, compared to English Revolution, 86, compared to Ireland, 71, 100, compared to Massachusetts, 19, 68, 71, 95, 96, 101, compared to New Amsterdam, 102, compared to Virginia, 37, 41, 100, 101, courts, 68, custom houses, 88, dancing, 47, demography, 37, drama, 47, Dutch tobacco tax, 101, Dutch trade, 92, 100, economic security, 59, European background, 1, governor, xvi, 67, 86, 89, independence from Crown and Parliament, 102, 137, Indian assimilation, 146, Indians, 37, internationalism, 147, Jesuit Hapsburgism, 107, judiciary, 96, Kent Island, 45, landlord, 19, liberation theology, 58, medical aspects, 81, migration, 37, military, 88, military assault, 88, music, 47, proprietor confiscated, 102, prosperity, 148, rebellion, 53, revolution, 86, 90, revolution (1644-1646), 92, revolution (1652), 95, revolution (1655), 95, Royalists, 88, secretary, 67, secular clergy, 122, slavery, 147, social life, 40, social services, 58, socialized regulations, 53, St. Mary’s City, 37, Time of Troubles (1644-1646), 92, Mass, 47, 58, communist (Philippines), 156

Massachusetts, 19, antinomianism, 90, compared to Maryland, 19, 65, 68, 95, 133, Congregational church, 133, Dutch trade, 95, Hugh Peter, 120, independence from England, 96, Indians, 142, lack of landlords, 69, Mayflower, 59, mint, 96, Plymouth (communist), 59, racism, 141, Thomas Weston, 59, trade with Maryland, 73

Materialism, 34

Media, capitalist, 106

Merchants, London, xvi, 93, trade war, 93

Mexico, 37, 113, Aztecs, 124, bishops (resistance), 116, missions, 116, racism, 141, Tzotzil-speaking Indians, 141

Migrants, Irish, 70

Migration, agrarian reform, 65

Military, Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654), 93, 95, Anglo-Powhatan War, 142, budget, 100, capitalism, 154, China, 123, Colombia (FARC, ELN), 155, counterrevolutionary (proprietor’s), 88, Dutch trade defended, 102, English Catholic, 48, farmer controlled, 148, Hapsburg wars, 108, Indians, 144, internationalism, 144, Ireland, 22, 114, landlord ideal, 48, mercenaries, 91, 148, mercenaries (Loyola), 123, militia, 47, 81, 148, militia districts (Maryland), 92, militia women, 40, New Peoples Army (Philippines), 155, Northern (Presbyterian-Scot) War, 99, Parliamentary Army, 23, 38, 120, Parliamentary Army (New Model Army), xv, Philippines (landlords), 156, prayer, 48, proprietor’s war (Indians), 100, royalist (Maryland), 88, Spain, xvii, 107, Susquehannocks, 77, Virginia mercenaries, 94, 102, weapons trade, 154

Missions (missionaries), Mexico, 116

Monarchy, Act of Grace (1634), 115, court life, 136, divine, 135, resistance, 85, saints, 138, Stuart, 136

Monastic(ism), communism, 59, estates, 20, 52, estates criticized, 53, Normans, 120, slavery, 115

Morality, Gospel, 51, love, 57, token almsgiving, 52

Mortmain, 118, 120

Movimento Popular de Libertacao de Angola, MPLA, 151

Music, 4, 38, 40. Maryland, 47

Naples. Hapsburgs, 108

Natural law, Roman, 16

Navigation Acts (1650 & 1651), 93

New Amsterdam, Dutch West India Company monopoly, 102

Nicaragua, Providence Island, 148

Nominalism, 34

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 53

Normans, conquest, xiv, 109, land monopoly, 120, yoke, 136

Nuns, antinomian, 12, communist, 57, communist (Philippines), 156, Cuba, 54, Czechoslovakia, 121, education, 2, 127, English, 127, Franciscan, 2, India, 53, Mother Teresa, 53, wealth, 6

Nutrition, corn, 146, lack of __, 66, 71, sufficiency, 103

Oath of secrecy, 88

Obedience, 10, 30, 78, 79, 121, bible, 131, class, 85, 134, evangelical, 8, 61, 84, oath (fealty), 68, religious duty, 138

Opium War, 117

Pamphlets, xv

Parliament, 16, Andrew White, S.J.’s support, xx, 131, army, 23, 38, barebones, 120, compared to Maryland Assembly, 87, conomic monopoly, 92, Long __, 22, 87, overthrow of __, 20, taxes, 98

Triennial Act, 87

Pastor, absentee, 122, BCC, 7, education, 7, 128, Gregory, 31, 32, Indians, 131, Jabel, 3, legislation, 122, 125, Maryland, 63, pope, 118

Patronage, 88

Peloponesian War, 16

Penal laws, 115, 116

Pennsylvania, 143

Peru, 13, 154, agrarian reform, 68, imperialist racism, 141

Philippines, 154, New Peoples Army (NPA), 155

Philistinism, xi

Poland, 63, communism, 117, episcopacy, 117, Patriotic Priests, 75, 117, praemunire, 117

Politics, 2, county committee, 19, Cuba, 154, democarcy, 139, gentry, 20, monopoly, 20, Spanish Marriage, 21, Spanish party, 21, violence, 153, worker dominated, 87

Pope (papacy), 32, 34, abortion, 55, bulls, xiv, condemnation of Andrew White, S.J., xx, 131, Cuba, 153, dignity, 118, Dominus ac Redemptor, xx, encyclical, 75, fraternal relations, xiii, In Coena Domini (bull), 113, justification, 34, nuncio, 118, overthrow of Protestants, 131, patron saints, 26, Regnans in Excelsis, xx, slavery, 115

Portugal, 1, Africa, 148, Aviz dynasty, 116, bishops, 115, slavery, 115

Poverty, 66, evangelical, 8, 61, 84, Thomas Aquinas, 53

Praemunire, xiv

Prayer, 46, 48, mental, 129, militarized, 48

Predestination, 14

Presbyterians, xvi, 11, leveled, 133

Scottish, 22

Priest-worker movement, 155

Primogeniture, 119

Privy council, 117

Pro Life Movement, 55

Program(s), agrarian, vii, full employment, 60, labor, vii

nationality, vii, poor relief, 60

Protestant, Bible, 142, Catholic bias against (absence), xv, 23, 26, 38, 86, 90, 91, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 102, 105, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 129, 131, 133, 138, 140

Providence, 14

Psychology, capitalist, 56, 106

Puritans, compared to Catholics, 65, gentry, 129, spirituality, 129, Virginia, 20

Quebec, Indians, 145

Racism, 27, 147, 154, Aristotle, 28, blood, 135, 139, 149, blood-mixing, 137, historiography, xiii, national chauvinism, 141, non-laboring, 139, Peru, 141

Religion (religious), Book of Common Prayer, 110, church courts, 112, communist, 54, 121, English schism, 109, evangelical counsels, 8, 61, 84, Greek, 4, liberty, xv, 105, nuns, 6, slavery, 115, Toleration Act (1649), 12, women, 2

Rent, 15, quit, 66, strike, 66, 87, 97

Revolution, 14, 1688, xv, Catholics (Maryland), 91, China, 117, 123, condemned, 132, Czechoslovakia, 120, evangelical counsels, 8, 61, 84, France, 122, Genesis, 72, justification, 13, Maryland, 86, Maryland (1645), 90, peasant (1381), 101, Peru, 13, Poland, 117, Pride’s Purge, 11, Richard II (1377-1399), 101, slavery, 17

Rhineland, 109

Rights, antinomian, 88, divine, 34, divine (episcopal), 120, economic, 30, farmer, 68, 87, Indian, 50, land, 50, landlord, 87, legal, 18, legislative, 86, property, 18, 84, revolution, 35, royal, 63, women, 10, 82

Rome(an), architecture, 137, Cicero, 18, civilization, xii, clericalism, xix, communism, 18, emperor, xiii, Empire, 11, evangelical counsels, 8, 61, 84, excommunication, 113, imperialism, 33, Inquisition, 112, labor, 4, papacy, 32, papal see, 110, plebeians, 16, religion, 31, Republic, 16, slavery, 28

Royal(ists)(ism), 5, 13, 22, Andrew White, S.J. abandons, xx, 131, beliefs, 138, confiscated, 59, court life, 138, Maryland, 88, Maryland proprietor, 98, Maryland rejection, 87, monopoly, 25, oposition, xv, opposition, 136, rights, 63, ship money, 99, taxes, 98, treason, 98, Virigina, 88

Sacraments, 46, 47, gentry religion, 129, Indians, 38

Saints, communist, 156

Sâo Tomé, 116

Schism, xiv, xix, 109

Scholars (scholarship), conservative, 103

Scotland, aborigines, 141, episcopacy, xv, Presbyterians, 22

Servants, abscondance, 45, 78, headstrong, 67

Servile War, 16

Sex, capitalism (promiscuity), 106, discrimination, 154, evangelical counsels, 8, 61, 84, historiography, xiii, prostitution, 154

Sicily, Hapsburgs, 108

Sin, social, 153

Slave(ry), vii, ix, 31, 42, 70, 114, 115, 128, 143, Angola, 71, insurrections, 16, Maryland, 147, rebellion, xiii, 17, 148, Roman, 28, Thomas Aquinas, 51, wage, Frederick (writer), 35

Social climbing, 119, 123

Social life, 40

Social services, elderly, 58, Mother Teresa, 53

Socialism, 60

Socialized regulations, 54

Society, classless, 36

South America, political overthrows, 95

South Carolina, settlement policy, 80

Soviet Constitution, 49

Spain, 1, 15, 116, Armada, xvii, bribery in England, 21, 107, Civil War (1521), 123, fleet, 79, Forida, 37, Guipúzcoa, 123, Hapsburg, 21, 107, 108, 124, Jews, 27, military, 107, Seville, 50, taxation, 108, Valladolid, 50

Spanish party, 21

Spiritual Exercises (Loyola), viii, 10, theology, 128

Spirituality, 38, Jesuit, 129

Squatters, 68, 97

St. Mary’s City, Md., 37, 44, 48, internationalism, 143

St. Paul’s Cathedral (London), 16, 129

Sugar, 116

Suicide, 79

Swedes, Maryland trade, 100

Taxes, 16, 18, 20, 66, assembly, 98, church, 133, crown custom, 99, defense, 100, Dutch tobacco __, 101, excise, 93, glebes, 122, poll (income), 99, 100, property, 100, recusant, xix, resistance, xv, ship money, 99, Spanish Hapsburg, 108, tithes, 112, 118, 122, 150, tobacco, 76, 99, Virginia, 101

Technology, iron tools, 146

Tenantry, 11, Catholic, 18, 23

Textiles, cloth, 146

Theology, Africa, 150, agrarian, xx, 3, antinomianism, 11, 30, 65, apocalyptic, 13, atheism, vii, 37, 87, 91, blasphemy, 60, 136, 137, Book of Common Prayer, 110, capitalist, viii, 27, 30, 50, catechism, 2, collectivism, 62, commutative justice, 51, 61, 62, conflict, 8, consumer capitalism, 106, contemplation, 34, 48, cosmology (Indian), 146, divine race, 135, eschatology, 12, evangelical counsels, 8, 61, 84, feast days, 81, Fray Pablo, 124, gentry, 21, 34, 126, 130, 134, government overthrow, 13, grace, 14, 139, Hapsburg, 113, hell & purgatory, 110, holy days, 26, Holy Spirit, 12, humility, 132, Hussism, 114, idealism, 34, Indian, 38, 145, individualism, 62, inner light, 12, internationalism, 152, inward voice, 12, Jesuits, viii, John Bull (communist priest), 101, just price, 52, 61, labor, 2, 31, labor theory of value, 50, 85, 96, 105, laity, 46, laity controlled, 120, landlord, 30, leveling, 13, liberation, vii, 2, 33, 37, 38, 58, liberty, 132, life-as-test, viii, liturgical, 26, 38, 46, 47, 122, Lollards, 122, love, 57, love (Neo-Platonic), 132, Lutheranism, 114, Malabar rite, 146, mass, 58, materialism, 34, Messalians (contempt of labor), 129, millenialism, 13, national chauvinism, 141, nominalism, 34, Normal yoke, 136, obedience, 10, 13, 14, 30, 66, 106, 113, 115, 131, 132, 134, other-worldly, 109, papal, 26, patience, 132, patron saints, 26, 47, Platform of Church Discipline (Massachusetts), 133, Platonic ideal, 48, 138, prayer, 46, 48, predestination, 14, preferential option, 105, 123, providence, 14, race (blood), 27, 137, 139, revolution, 14, Roman, 31, royalist, 138, sacramental, 21, 33, 34, sacred monarchy, 135, scholastic (criticized), 52, sin, 32, 112, 153, slavery, 28, 31, spirit, 86, Spiritual Exercises (Loyola), 128, suffering (cult), 53, suffering and sacrifice, 121, 130, Sundays, 81, syncretic, 146, synods, 133, Thirty-Nine Articles, 110, token almsgiving, 52, universal grace, 12, violence, 153, virginity, 132, virtue, 14, 132, women, 10, worker, vii, 2, 3, 10, 29, 46, 48, 87, Wycliffism, 114

Thirty Years' War, 22

Time of Troubles (1644-1646), 88, 92

Tithes, 118, 122, Congo, 150

Tobacco, 41, income, 43, monopoly, 20, 21, prices, 44, 92, regulations, 76, taxes, 76, 99, work required, 42

Transportation, capitalist, 107

Turkey, mercenaries, 123

Usufruct, 39, 49, 68

Usury, 16, 33

Value, labor, 37

Vietnam, 75

Violence, Camilo Torres, 57, social structures, 153

Virginia, 38, Bacon’s rebellion, 101, church taxes, 133, classless, society, 69, Company, 38, 41, compared to Maryland, 41, 69, Dutch trade, 95, House of Burgesses, 95, Indian missons, 142, legislature, 77, Northampton County, 95, Parliamentarians, 90, Puritan republic, 20, racism, 141, royalist government, 94, trade with Maryland, 73

Wales, 1, 26, aborigines, 141

War, Angola, 151, Civil, vii, x, 2, 12, 15, 23, 36, 47, 86, 88, 92, 96, 137, Dutch, 48, 94, foreign, 19, Hapsburg, 108, 109, Indian, 77, 100, 143, Northern, 99, Opium, 117, Peloponesian, 16, Peru, 13, profession, 48, Servile, 16, Spain, 123, Thirty Years’, 22, World __ II, xi, 54, 63, 75

Wardour castle, 23

Wealth, distribution, 11, distribution (equitable), 154, Indian beliefs, 50

source, 30, violence, 153

West Indies, 38

Will, free, 14

Women, 32, contract rights, 82, division of labor, 46, education, 82, equal wages, 55, equality, 10, 82, 119, farmers, 42, Indian, 40, 46, labor, 40, Maryland assembly, 86, militia, 40, nuns, 2, 6, physician, 70, pregnancy, 42, 47, 78, servants, 78, subordination, 28

Wool, 146, spinning, 44

Work(er), anarchism, 85, celebrated, 46, clergy, 6, commons, 63, communism, 103, contempt, 5, 41, 63, contract, 78, 91, culture, 2, 4, economics, 2, farm, 41, Gaelic, 49, God’s image, 72, impious, 89, Indian, 42, 49, internationalism, 152, job security, 104, liturgy, 26, morality, 49, music, 4, no shame, 4, patron saints, 26, 47, political beliefs, 87, politics, 2, priest-__ movement, 155, rebellion, 79, religion, 4, 10, 49, safe __ conditions (Poland), 118, self-help, 78, social life, 2, solidarity, 55, spirituality, 51, subsistence income, 18, taken seriously, 44

theft, 79, tobacco, 42, wages, 45, 66, women, 10, 42

Workhouses, 59

World Bank, 53

World War II, xi

Yorkshire, 26

(Figure omitted)

Figure 9-1: (left) seventeenth-century Maryland post-in-the ground house construction; (right) sleeping loft.[735]

[INDEX, 2011 ed., p. 192]

(Figure omitted)

Figure 9-2: Map of Spain in the Time of Ignatius Loyola.[736]

[NAME INDEX, 2011 ed., p. 193]

NAME INDEX

Afonso I (Congo king), 148, 150

Anne of Austria (Queen of Poland), 52

Aquinas, Thomas, 5, 33, 48, 57, 61, 63, 138, class prejudices, 128, economic philosophy, 18, 50, slavery, 51

Aristotle, 9, 18, 28, 29, 51, conservative views, 34, Nicomachean Ethics, 14, primogeniture, 120

Arundell, Henry (Third Baron of Wardour), 23

Augustine, 32, 33, 83, racism, 28

Aveling, Hugh (historian), 2

Baker, Augustine (priest), 12

Balasuriya, Tissa (priest), xii

Bautista, Manuel (bishop), 150

Becket, Thomas à (bishop), 110

Bellarmine, S.J., Robert (writer), 34

Bennett, Richard (Virginia-Maryland Presbyterian), 94

Beran, Josef (bishop), 121

Berkeley, William (Virginia politicians), 89

Bogen, David (historian), xv

Bolton, Edward (writer), 3, 29, 31

Bonosky, Philip (historian), xi

Brébeuf, S.J., Jean de (priest), 126

Brent, Giles (migrant), 97

Brent, Margaret (migrant), 118

Brown, John, ix

Bull, John (communist priest), 101

Calvert, Cecil (proprietor), vii, 19, 44, 65, 66, 87, absolute lord, 87, Arundell relations, 23, charter, 96, Civil War side switching, 88, 140, complaints by, 97, confiscated, 73, 97, 102, contempt for, 102, debts, 76, dignity and dominion, 97, disenfranchised, 140, land disputes with Jesuits, 107, land speculator, 37, law codes rejected, 96, 120, leveled, 94, military aggression, 92, overthrown (1652), 94, patronage, 88, 100, political connections, 22, rent strike, 23, resistance, 85, royal commission (1644), 88, Virginia allies, 88, Wiltshire residence, 23

Calvert, George, 19, 33, 50, 141, Crown patronage, 99, Irish peerage, 21, politics, 22, profiteer, 21, racial theology, 139, title, 21

Calvert, Leonard (governor), 89, spirituality, 129

Carr, Lois (historian), xi

Castro, Fidel, 54, 153

Caussin, Nicholas (priest), 52

Charlemagne, xiii

Charles I, 10, 132, execution, 87, 120, 140, monopolist, 75

Charles II, xvi, 132, 140

Charles V (emperor), 109, 124

Chu, R.S.J., Theresa (nun), 117

Cicero (Roman politician), 18, 28, 31, 32

Claiborne, William (Virginia merchant), 143

Clement VII (pope), English schism, 109

Connolly, James (revolutionary), 35, 60, 152

Copley, S.J., Thomas (priest), 67, 73, 82, 110, 114, Hapsburgism, 107, leveled, 91

Corby, S.J., Ralph (priest), 7

Cornelius Tacitus (writer), 32

Cornwallis, Thomas (migrant), 90, 98, expropriated, 91

Cortes, Hernando (imperialist), 124

Cotton, John (preacher), 133

Cranfield, Lionel (politician), 19

Cromwell, Oliver (revolutionary), xvi, 133

Davenant, William (dramatist), xvi, 99, 132, Maryland governor, 140, Neo-Platonism, 138

Duke of Alva (Hapsburg), 108

Eliot, John (missionary), 142

Ellacuria, S.J., Ignatius (priest), 153

Engels, Frederick (writer), 35

Erasmus, Desiderius (writer), 47

Maryland, 137

Evans, Nelly (nun), 57

Ferdinand (king), 123

Fitzherbert, S.J., Francis (priest), 107

Francis I (1515-1547, French king), 109

Francis of Assisi, 61

Gomulka, Wladyslaw (politician), 75

Gonzaga, S.J., Aloysius, 130

Gostynska, Danuta (Polish revolutionary), 109

Graham, S.J., Michael (historian), 58

Greene, Thomas (migrant), 67, 102

Gregory I the Great (pope), class prejudices, 128

Gregory I, the Great (pope), 18, 31, 52

Gregory VII (pope, Hildebrand), 32

Guzman, Gonzalo (revolutionary), 57

Hampsch, George, vi

Hawkins, Thomas (writer), 10, 31

Henry VIII (king), English schism, 109

Hesiod (Greek writer), 4

Hill, Christopher (historian), vi, x, xi, 14, 85

Howard, Thomas (Earl of Arundel), 21

Ingle, Richard (merchant), 90, 94

John XXII (pope), 35

Jones, Inigo (architect), 16, 137

Julius Caesar, 33

Kaczmarek, Czeslaw (Polish bishop), 118

Kempis, Thomas à, ix

Khrushchev, Nikita (politician), 75

Kittamaquand, Mary (Indian), 115

Krugler, John (historian), xx

Lampart, Guillen de (William, Zorro) (revolutionary), 114

Laval, François de Montmorency (Canadian bishop), 116

LeJeune, S.J., Paul (priest), 125

Lemparty, Antoni (priest), 75

Lenin, Vladimir, ix, 155

Lewger, John (migrant), 74

Lewis, William (migrant), 111

Livy (Roman writer), 18

Loyola, S.J., Ignatius, viii, 10, 48, mercenary, 123, social climbing, 119, 123

Luther, Martin, 110

Machiavelli, 17

Martin V (pope), xiv

Massinger, Philip (dramatist), 5, 6, 10, 19, 25, 98, 139, court life, 136, Hapsburg tyranny, 108, ship money taxation, 99

Matthew, Tobie (writer), 132

Milton, John (writer), 112

Miranda, Jose Porfirio (Bible scholar), 71, 153

Mondet, Jean-Marie (Peruvian priest), 57

More, Gertrude (nun), 12

More, Thomas, Republican, 137, Utopia, 104

Morton, A.L. (historian), 103

Mother Teresa (Agnes Bojaxhiu), 53

Nash, Gary, vi

Nobili, S.J., Roberto de (missionary), 123

Ockham, William of __ (Franciscan), 34

Pablo, Fray (Dominican priest), 124

Paul (apostle), 8, 124

Paul III (pope), 116, slavery, 115

Pazmiño, Irma, vi

Persons, S.J., Robert (priest), xiv, xix, 6, 27, 30, 109, 129, theology, 83

Peter, Hugh (Independent), 119

Petty, William (economist), 9, 31

Philip II (Hapsburg emperor), 116

Pinmei, Gong (Chinese bishop), 117

Pius V (pope), xx

Pliny (Roman writer), 140

Plojhar, Joseph (priest), 121

Plutarch (Greek writer), 18

Powhatan (Indian leader), 143

Pryne, William (leveler), 65

Przetakiewicz, Zygmunt (writer), 63

Pseudo-Dionysius (writer), 17

Pym, John (politician), xv

Queen Henrietta Maria, xvi, 21, 138

Queen Katherine (1485-1536, England), 109

Richard II (1377-1399), overthrown and executed, 101

Richards, Dean, vi

Robert, John ap (theologian), 119

Rosetti, Rosetti (nuncio), 118

Rountree, Helen (historian), 41, 46

Salvian of Marseille, 52

Sampson, S.J., William, vi

Sandys, Edwin (politician), 20

Segundo, S.J., Juan Luis (theologian), viii, 85

Smith, Adam, 9

Smith, John (Va. migrant), 69

Smith, Richard (bishiop), 116

Solon (Athenian farmer), 16

Soto Domingo de (scholar), 52

Sousa, Mathew de (Portuguese-Congo migrant), xv, 148

Spartacus, 16

St. Anne, 47

Stone, Thomas (Maryland governor), 94

Sullivan, Terry (historian), vi, 33, 55

Tedesco, Giglia (Italian politician), 54

Terrar, Edward, vi, x, xx, 1, 12, 25, 105, 117

Tertullian (theologian), slavery, 17

Tiberius Gracchus (Roman leader), 17

Tobie, Matthew (writer), 22

Torres, Camilo (priest), 56, 155

Tubal Cain (iron worker), 29

Tyler, Wat (revolutionary), 100

Urban VII (pope), 106

Walwyn, William (leveler), xvi

Wentworth, Thomas (Earl of Strafford), 21, deputy lieutenant (Ireland), 100, Irish Parliament, 140, politics, 20, tobacco monopoly, 76

Weston, Thomas, Maryland migrant, 59

White, S.J., Andrew (priest), 41, consumer capitalism, 106, Indian cosmology, 151, Indian ministry, 130, Indians, 145, landlord beliefs, 50, papal condemnation, xx, 131, Valladolid & Seville, 107

White, Thomas (priest), 2, 12, 13, 31, 62, 110, liberation theology, 60

Winstanley, Gerrard (leveler), 11, 39, 66

Xavier, S.J., Francis (priest), Japan, 142

Xenephon (Greek writer), 18

[NAME INDEX, 2011 ed., p. 196]

(Figure omitted)

Figure 9-3: Map of Civil War Period Catholic England, Wales and Ireland

Publishers Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Terrar, Edward Toby, 1944-

Liberation Theology Along the Potomac: Labor's Golden Rule in Early American Catholicism / Edward Toby Terrar.

Includes bibliographical references, index, maps and illustrations.

ISBN 0-9764168-4-0.

1. Intellectual life--History.

2. Catholics--Maryland--History--17th Century.

3. Catholic Church--Clergy.

4. Catholic Church--Doctrines--History.

5. History (Theology).

6. History of doctrines--Middle Ages--Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225.

7. Liberation Theology.

8. Labor theory of value.

9. Antinomianism.

10. Spirituality.

11. Jesuits--History.

12. Drama--History.

13. Philosophy--History.

14. Politics--History.

15. Working class--Maryland--Religious life--17th century.

16. Working class--Maryland--Social conditions--17th century.

17. Maryland--History--Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775.

18. Virginia--History--Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775.

19. Massachusetts--History--Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775.

20. Puritans--Massachusetts.

21. Canada--History--To 1763 (New France).

22. Indians--History.

23. England--Church History--17th century.

24. Great Britain--History--Civil War, 1642-1649.

25. Africa--Church History.

26. Africa, West--History.

27. Africa--Politics and government.

28. Brazil--History--17th century.

29. Latin America--History.

30. Ireland--History--1649-1660.

31. Portugal--History--Spanish dynasty, 1580-1640.

F190.C3 T47 2011

975.2’02

CWP
15405 Short Ridge Ct.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
https://www.angelfire.com/un/cwp

To order: (301) 598 5427
E-Mail: CathWkr@aol.com

---

[1]From British Library, TT E. 156(16), p. 8, as reproduced in David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 176.

[2]Al Luckenbach, Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County Maryland's First European Settlement (Annapolis, Md.: The Maryland State Archives, 1995), p. 14.

[3]Cecil Calvert, "Letter to the Assembly" (April 1650), Archives of Maryland (William H. Browne, ed., 72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, pp. 264-265.

[4]Juan Luis Segundo, The Christ of the Ignatian Exercises in the series, Jesus of Nazareth, Yesterday and Today (New York: Orbis, 1987), vol. 4, p. 42.

[5]Ibid., pp. 44, 46.

[6]Ibid., p. 49.

[7]Ibid., p. 98.

[8]Ibid., pp. 70, 98.

[9]Ibid., pp. 74, 92. In substituting hardship for the historical message, Jesus was made a monk. The one book Loyola recommended by name to the exercitant was the Imitation of Christ and Despising of the World by Thomas à Kempis. See Ibid., p. 105.

[10]Edward Terrar, Social, Economic, and Religious Beliefs among Maryland Catholic Laboring People During the Period of the English Civil War, 1639-1660 (San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1996). Vladimir Lenin had to apologize in the preface to the second edition of his pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in 1916. He wrote it in an "accursed Aesopian language" because he had to deal "with the iron vice" of the tsarist censor. The 1996 version of this essay used allegorical language for similar reasons.

[11]Quoted in Richard Hinton, John Brown and His Men (Funk & Wagnalls, Co., 1894), p. 363. See also, Edward Terrar, "The Religious Ethic in American Legal History," Southern University Law Review, (Baton Rouge: 1990), vol. 17, p. 101.

[12]Edward Terrar, "Religious Freedom in the American Colonial Era from the Perspective of Race, Class and Gender: The Contribution of the New Social History," Epoche: Journal of the History of Religions at UCLA (Los Angeles, California: 1986), vol. 14, pp. 71-137.

[13]Christopher Hill, Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution Revisited (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 350-351.

[14]In contrast to Christopher Hill, capitalist historians such as Raymond Tumbleson, as in his Catholicism in the English Protestant Imagination: Nationalism, Religion and Literature, 1660-1745 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 13, in confronting the 1996 edition of this present study, is blind to class and to his own role in the class system. Such scholars cannot imagine that today as in the past, their class position largely determines everything else about their life - housing, education, health care, life expectancy, life opportunities and even values and ideas. Moreover, they fail to consider that the class divisions in society generate the main economic and political conflicts, from conflict between profit and wages to conflicts over trade policies, health care, taxes, education and the environment. In short, the capitalists' desire for profit repeatedly conflicts with the interests of the rest of society in a better quality of life. The most important of these conflicts is over the division of the value created by the production of commodities for the market.

[15]Mike Wallace, Mickey Mouse History and Other Essays in American Memory (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996), pp. 14, 137; Richard Handler and Eric Gable, The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997).

[16]Historic St. Mary’s City is the Maryland counterpart to Colonial Williamsburg. Social critic Upton Sinclair in The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education (Pasadena, California: 1923), p. viii, described the mission of such publicly-funded endeavours as “Not wisdom but folly, not justice but greed, not freedom but slavery, not love but hate.” To which might be added, as in the case of Maryland historians like Lois Carr, “not exciting, but boring.”

[17]Phillip Bonosky, Beyond the Borders of Myth: From Vilnius to Hanoi (New York: Praxis Press, 1967), pp. 67, 69.

[18]Tissa Balasuriya, Commonweal (January 22, 1965), p. 536.

[19]Recent class-blind accounts of the period include Peter Lake, The AntiChrist’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), pp. 484-503 and Frances Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender and Seventeenth-Century Print Culture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999); Albert Loomie, “Oliver Cromwell’s Policy Toward the English Catholic: The Appraisal by Diplomats, 1654-1658,” The Catholic Historical Review, 90 (January 2004), pp. 29-44.

[20]These local histories are summarized in Terrar, Social, Economic and Religious Beliefs, pp. 8-17.

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

[22]Historian Edward Norman in Roman Catholicism from the Elizabethan Settlement to the Second Vatican Council (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 23, 26, remarks:

The English Catholic Church of the middle ages had always been separated from Rome. The centralizing of the Council of Trent which ended in 1563 was foreign to traditional English Catholicism. . . There had been no agreement about the extent or nature of papal jurisdiction in English Catholicism of the past. Elizabethian Catholicism did not rush to assert the primacy of the pope. The Jesuits did.

[23]Arthur Ogle, The Canon Law in Medieval England: An Examination of William Lyndwood's ‘Provinciale’ in reply to the late Prof. Maitland (London: John Murray, 1912), p. 60.

[24]Henry Gee, Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1921), pp. 103-104, has the First Statute of Praemunire (1353), 27 Edward III, Stat. 1.

[25]Ogle, The Canon Law in Medieval England, p. 165.

[26]"Second Statute of Praemunire" (1393), 16 Richard II, cap. 2, in Gee, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 122-123.

[27]W. T. Waugh, "The Great Statute of Praemunire," English Historical Review, 37 (1922), 193-194, 204; Ogle, The Canon Law in Medieval England, p. 164. 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 in Roman Canon Law in Reformation England, p. 33, see also p. 25, remarks that by the time of the Reformation, a jurisdictional reformation had already occurred because of the expanded use of praemunire.

[28]Robert Persons, S.J., "Story of Domestic Difficulties," ed. J. H. Pollen, S.J., Catholic Record Society (London), 2 (1906), 50. In addition to being a way of attacking clerical capitalism, in which the Catholics had a hand, anti-Catholicism also had another use. Some of the magnates seem to have regularly employed it in their efforts to manipulate laboring people. The idea was to shift the blame away from themselves for an established order in England in which up to half the people were in poverty and without employment. See Robin Clifton, "The Popular Fear of Catholics in England," Past and Present (Oxford), 52 (August 1971), 41, 55.

There were Chesapeake landlords who in a similar manner attacked the economic interests of white, black and Indian laboring people by attempting to pit them against each other in order to minimize their united opposition to the landlord order. See T. H. Breen and Stephen Innis, "Myne Owne Ground": Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 5. But just as in the mid-seventeenth-century Maryland whites, blacks and Indians were not easily fooled in discerning what was in their interest, the English laboring majority and even many among the gentry were not generally misled. For example, Robin Clifton in "Popular Fear of Catholics," pp. 53-54, shows that while John Pym in 1641 and 1642 used anti-Catholicism to "hold a majority about him in Parliament" against the crown, his main argument centered on anti-Royalism and anti-Laudism. There was unity against the crown because the gentry in Parliament had no interest in increasing their taxes so that the king could impose an episcopacy in Scotland. Not theoretical fear, but concrete dislike of clericalism and taxation was the issue.

[29]Along with Protestant persecution, siege history includes the notion of Roman benevolence. The Maryland Jesuits, for example, present themselves as tolerant of Jews by using the example of Mathew de Sousa, who migrated to Maryland about 1635. David Bogen in “Research Notes and Maryland Miscellany: Mathias de Sousa: Maryland’s First Colonist of African Descent,” Maryland Historical Magazine (2001), vol. 96, p. 73, comments, “Jesuit historians invariably identified de Sousa as ‘the Jew’” in an effort to show Catholic toleration in the early days of the colony. But, as Bogen points out, there are no records to substantiate that de Sousa was a Jew. Stephen Haliczer in Between Exaltation and Infamy: Female Mysticism in the Golden Age of Spain (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 30, points out the obvious, the Jesuit doctrine was intolerance towards Jews, Muslims and Protestants. After the Inquisition eliminated the vernacular Bible, the gap was filled by hagiographies that employed sensational blood libels depicting Jews and convert Jews as sacrificing Christian children and desecrating the consecrated eucharistic host in their synagogues.

[30]J. R. Jones, The Revolution of 1688 in England (New York: Norton, 1972), pp. 75-76.

[31]Thomas Clancy, S.J. "The Jesuits and the Independents, 1647," Archivium Historicum Societatis Jesu (Rome), 40 (1971), p. 88; Edward Henson (ed.), The English College at Madrid, 1611-1767 (1929), in Catholic Record Society (London), vol. 39, pp. 299 ff; Thomas Hughes S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), text, vol. 2, p. 53; John Bozman, The History of Maryland (Spartenburg, S.C.: Reprint Co., [1837], 1968), vol. 2, p. 331; B. Howard Griswold, "A Maryland Governor who Never Governed," Maryland Historical Magazine (Baltimore), 28 (1933), 109; Joseph Gillow (ed.), "William Davenant," A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics from the Breach with Rome in 1534 to the Present Time (5 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1885-1902), vol. 2, p. 22.

In 1646 Queen Henrietta Maria and a number of exiled royalist Presbyterians sent over the Catholic William Davenant (1601-1668) from Paris to Charles I, who was a prisoner of the Scots at Newcastle, England. They wanted Davenant to persuade the king to join the Presbyterians and make peace with the Scots. Later Davenant appeared in Maryland politics. Charles II in 1650 purported to strip the Maryland proprietor of his patent after he had gone over to the Parliamentary side. Davenant was named Maryland's new royal governor on February 16, 1650. However, he never made it to Maryland. He was apprehended in the English Channel as he was starting on his way from Paris. He was then imprisoned in the Tower of London. If his poetry is any indication, he would have used the royal governorship to practice in Maryland what the king was trying to do in England. He wrote in "Poem upon his Sacred majesty's Most Happy Return to his Dominion" (1660), Shorter Poems and Songs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 83:

Only armed power can law protect
And rescue wealth from crowds, when poverty
Treads down those laws on which the rich rely.

[32]Parliament had taken several million pounds in loans from the London merchants to finance the war. The gentry wanted to pay the loans back not by taxation of themselves but by confiscating Irish land. The leveler William Walwin, as quoted in A. L. Morton (ed.), Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974), p. 65, remarked that, "The sending over forces to Ireland is nothing else but to make war by the blood of the army to enlarge their territories of power and tyranny, that it is an unlawful war, a cruel and bloody work to go to destroy the Irish natives for their conscience, and to drive them from their proper natural and native rights."

[33]William Walwyn, The Just Defense of William Walwyn (May 30, 1649), reprinted in William Haller and Godfrey Davies, The Leveler Tracts, 1647-1653 (Gloucester: P. Smith, [1944] 1964), p. 365; William Walwyn, The Writings of William Walwyn, ed. Jack R. McMichael and Barbara Taft (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989).

[34]Robin Clifton, "The Fear of Catholics in England, 1637 to 1645, Principally from Central Sources," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Balliol College, 1967, p. 250. See also, Robin Clifton, "Fear of Popery," The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. C. Russell (New York: Macmillan, 1975). At best the popular fear of Catholicism was a factor only until 1642, as Clifton sums up in "The Fear of Catholics in England, 1637 to 1645,” pp. 32, 53:

During the English Revolution the fear of Catholics had political significance for three years only, between 1640 and 1642. . . A few anti-Catholic alarms occurred early in 1643, but despite the confusion and defeats of war, the open presence of Catholics in the royalist army, Charles's negotiations to add Irishmen to his forces, and the most strenuous efforts of Catholic-baiting parliamentary propagandists, the alarms of 1640-1642 did not revive. Reports of plots against parliamentary garrisons abounded between 1643 and 1646, but only twice were Catholics mentioned among the conspirators and none of the plots were explicitly described as popish.

[35]Public Record Office, 31/9/46, fol. 207, as cited in Clancy, "The Jesuits and the Independents," 83. The proposed legislation was designed to keep laboring people in fear of Catholics instead of in rebellion against the established order. But the Independents in Parliament, who were considerably under the influence of the army, blocked the enactment.

[36]The penal statutes enacted or re-enacted during the Civil War are collected Charles H. Firth and R. S. Rait (eds.). Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (3 vols., London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1911), vol. 1, p. 106 (March 27, 1643), p. 254 (August 18, 1643), p. 1679 (August 9, 1643), p. 1186 (August 25, 1648); see also, Anthony Forbes, "Faith and True Allegiance: The Law and the Internal Security of England, 1559-1714," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 1960, pp. 133-138. The main penalty against the recusant gentry was sequestration. This meant the seizure of the delinquent's property by "sequestrators" appointed by commission, who managed the property, and applied the rents and profits to the use of the state, with the owner getting only a fifth to live upon.

[37]Hibbard, "Early Stuart Catholicism," p. 3; 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. 2, pp. 611-622. In Ireland, despite the penal laws, there was a functioning bishop in every diocese.

[38]Thomas Law, A Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between the Jesuits and the Seculars (London: D. Nutt, 1889), p. xvii, comments on the Catholics' rejection of a Spanish conquest in 1588:

To the clerical promoters of the invasion, its issue must indeed have been a severe blow. More bitterly disappointing than the loss of the Spanish fleet was the discovery by the exiles that they could not count upon the disloyalty of the Catholic laity at home. The very men whom William Allen [d. 1594] and Robert Persons had boasted of as their trusted allies had taken up arms for the detestable Jezebel.

The planned Spanish invasion of 1597 was scrapped in part because the Elizabethan Catholics could not be recruited to help it. The Spanish minister, Pegna, as quoted in Hugh Tootell, Charles Dodd's Church History from the Commencement of the Sixteenth Century to the Revolution in 1688, ed. Mark A. Tierney (5 vols., New York: AMS Press, [1843] 1971), vol. 3, p. lxvii, reported back to his government that, "His Catholic majesty has for him in England no heretic and for the Catholics he hath only those who depend upon the direction of the Jesuits, who are few. The Jesuits do not labor openly as the secular priests do, to gain a great number."

[39]F. 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, California: Stanford University Press, 1962), pp. 8-10; Hugh Bowler (ed.), Recusant Roll No. 2 (1593-1594) (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1965), vol. 57, pp. ix-xlviii; C. Talbot (ed.), Miscellanea (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1960), vol. 53, p. 293; Hugh Bowler, "Introduction," ibid. vol. 52, pp. xxxix-xl.

Recusants were those who refused to attend Anglican services and included Protestants as well as Catholics. During the war, when mandatory church attendance was abolished, Catholic recusants were those who refused to take the oath of abjuration. See Hugh Bowler (ed.), London Sessions Records, 1605-1685 (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1934), vol. 34, p. xlvi.

Once the Independents took over in 1649 they repealed several laws which had been used against Catholics. Among these were the Oaths of Allegiance, Obedience, and Supremacy. A simple "Engagement to be true and faithful to the commonwealth of England, as it is now established, without a king or house of lords" was substituted. The new oath was a condition for holding office. The two treason acts of 1649 made no mention of priests or papists in connection with the usual provisions against subversive activities. See "The Engagement," 1650), in Gee, Documents Illustrative of English Church History, p. 575; Firth, Acts, vol. 2, p. 1 (February 9, 1649); vol. 2, p. 120 (May 14, 1649); p. 193 (July 17, 1649); vol. 2, p. 325 (January 2, 1650); vol. 2, p. 423 (September 27, 1650).

[40]"An Act to Retain the Queen Majesty's Subjects in Due Obedience," in Robert Drayton (ed.), Statutes of the Realm (1225-1948) (3rd ed., 11 vols, London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1950), 23 Eliz. 1, c. 1 (1581); Walker, "Implementation of the Elizabethan Statutes," p. 131.

[41]Hugh Aveling, Catholic Recusancy in the County of York, 1558-1791 (St. Albans: Catholic Record Society, 1967), p. 108; see also, Aveling, Northern Catholics: The Catholic Recusants of the North Riding, Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), pp. 204, 212-214, 271, 282. By the 1610s even the pretense of the penal system had been replaced by a system of compounding, that is, a tax on recusants. Illustrative of how the compounding tax worked was the case of Thomas Meynell, who had an income of £500 per year. As a recusant, he was obliged in certain periods to pay up to one-fourth of it in fines. But for purposes of the fine, his income was rated at £40 per year. This meant he paid only £10 per year on an income of £500. In the years when he chose to conform by taking the oath of allegiance, he seems to have paid no fine. See Aveling, Northern Catholics, pp. 215, 220; see also, John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1975), p. 155. By using methods of under valuation, as well as by using trusts, downers, debt laws, perjury, and bribery, recusants paid little or nothing for their religious beliefs. Peter Newman, in "Roman Catholics in Pre-Civil War England: The Problem of Definition," Recusant History, 15 (1979), p. 149, comments that the view "of all Catholics as committed sufferers in the cause of the faith is one more myth that the history of the Catholic community can do without."

[42]Illustrative of the anti-Protestant literature were: B. C., Puritanism the Mother, Sin the Daughter (1633), in D. M. Rogers, English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 98; Jean d'Albin de Valsergues, A Notable Discourse, Plainly and truly discussing who are the right ministers of the Catholic church (1575), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 28; Lawrence Anderton, The non-entity of Protestantism (1633), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 91; Martin Becanus, Calvin is Overthrown (1614), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 46; John Floyd (d. 1649), The Overthrow of the Protestants pulpit-babels (1612), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 149.

[43]Christopher Haigh, The English Reformation Revised (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 195, finds the controversial literature was the work of those who lived abroad and to a lesser degree to those who were employed as domestic chaplains. The training for clergy at Catholic seminaries such as Douai was not for conversion but for ministering to pre-existing Catholics.

[44]Thomas Sanchez, S.J., Opus Morale in Praecepta Decalogi (2 vol., Paris: n.p., 1615); Robert Persons, S.J., A Brief Discourse containing certain reasons why Catholics refuse to go to church (Douai: John Lyon, 1580).

[45]John Krugler, English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), p.199.

[46]Andrew White, S.J. was condemned by Rome on November 15, 1647 for supporting an oath to the parliamentary government in London. At that point Calvert and the Jesuits had abandoned royalism in the hopes that Parliament would overthrow the Maryland Catholics, who had established working class rule in their government. See Thomas Clancy, S.J., "The Jesuits and the Independents, 1647," Archivium Historicum Societatis Jesu (Rome), 40 (1971), 73, 85.

[47]The inconsistent nature of Rome’s anti-Protestantism was again demonstrated a century after the English Civil War when the pope, with his brief Dominus ac Redemptor, achieved on July 21, 1773 the type of anti-Catholicism, for which the Protestants had only hoped. He dissolved the Jesuit order. In short, to the extent there was a religious persecution during the Civil War, most of it came from the landlord class and their clerical allies.

[48]Al Luckenbach, Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology from Anne Arundel County Maryland's First European Settlement (Annapolis, Md.: The Maryland State Archives, 1955), p. 18.

[49]For a discussion of the studies dealing with the English Catholic population and the distinction between recusant, partial conformer and church Catholics, see Edward Terrar, "Royalists or Diggers? Catholics in the English Civil War," Science and Society, 57 (1993), 316-317.

[50]John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd), 1975), pp. 161, 234, 261.

[51]Frederick Blundell, Old Catholic Lancashire (3 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1941), vol. 1, pp. 14, 32, 49, 67, 77, 121, 131, 145, 162; vol. 2, pp. 25, 48, 91, 128.

[52]Robin Clifton, "The Popular Fear of Catholics in England," Past and Present, 52 (1971), 47.

[53]Hugh Aveling, Northern Catholics: The Catholic Recusants of the North Riding, Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), p. 384, see also, 253-255, 257, 291-294, 267, 317.

[54]See Keith Thomas, The Ends of Life: Roads to Fulfillment in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 86, 300, which in discussing the value of labor, cites and expands on an earlier draft of this present chapter.

[55]Thomas White, A Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Paris: n.p., 1637, 1640, 1659), pp. 4, 15.

[56]Edward Bolton, The Cities Advocate, in this case, or a Question of honor and arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? Containing a clear refutation of the Pernicious common Error affirming it, swallowed by Erasmus of Roterdam, Sir Thomas Smith in his "Commonweal", Sir John Ferris in his "Blazon", Ralph Broke York Herald and others (Norwood, N.J.: W. J. Johnson, [1629], 1975), pp. 20-21.

[57]Ibid., p. 19.

[58]Ibid., pp. 1, 3.

[59]Ibid., p. 19.

[60]Ibid., p. 21.

[61]Peter Burke, "Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martins Press, 1985), p. 57. Among the Roman figures was Minerva (Athena in Greek religion) who invented the plow, taught workers how to yoke oxen, introduced the cultivation of olives and was the patroness of workers. A classic poet that found favor with 17th-century labor was the Greek farmer, Hesiod, who wrote about 700 B.C. Illustrative of his positive view of labor was the following from Works and Days (Opera et dies, Deventer: Jacobus de Breda, 1497):

Famine and blight do not beset the just

Who till their well-worked fields and feast

The earth supports them lavishly . . .

You must learn to organize your work

So you may have full barns at harvest time.

From working, people grow rich in flocks and gold.

And dearer to the deathless gods. In work

There is no shame; shame is in idleness.

[62]Christopher Haigh, "The Recent Historiography of the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 25.

[63]F. W. Hackwood, Good Cheer: The Romance of Food and Feasting (New York: T. F. Unwin, 1911), p. 201.

[64]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 118.

[65]Bernard Capp, "Popular Literature," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martins Press, 1985), p. 204.

[66]Cecil Sharp, The Morris Book: A History of Morris Dancing with a description of Eleven Dances as performed by the Morrismen of England (London: Novello Co., 1907), pp. 6-7.

[67]Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, p. 164.

[68]Christopher Haigh, "The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 206-207, 214. The material in the plays of the Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger (d. 1640) was rooted in the rural people's beliefs about labor. Doris Adler, Philip Massinger (Boston: Twayne Pub., 1987), p. 78, remarks that his plays were characterized by "the struggle between those who produce wealth and those who only consume that wealth in extravagant luxury." His plays, which were put on at London's Red Bull and Phoenix, had popularity with working people. Massinger's popular acceptance contrasted with that of William Davenant, a royalist Catholic whose plays were put on at Blackfriars. Davenant flattered the Crown and maintained his position because of royal backing. As noted earlier, he was named by the Royalists in 1649 to be governor of Maryland, but was arrested while still in European waters.

[69]Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae: Latin Text and English Translation, Introduction, Notes, ed. Thomas Gilby, O.P. (60 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), vol. 41, p. 126-127, pt. 1a, q. 108, art. 2; see also, Aquinas, In Metaphysicam aristotelis commentaria, ed. M. R. Cathala (Rome: Collegii pontificia internationalis angelici, 1915), bk. 1, sec. 30.

[70]Nicholas Caussin, The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity [1634, etc.] 1977), trans. Basil Brooke in D. M. Rogers, English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 367, vol. 1, p. 120; see also, Plato, Sophist in Platonis opera quae extant omnia (Paris: H. Stephanus, 1578), 266 a-d; Aristotle, Metaphysics in The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross (12 vols., London: Oxford University Press, 1952), 98, IbIff.

[71]François de Dainville, L'Éducation des jésuites, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1978), pp. 25, 36. Working-class children did not attend classes as regularly, stay in school as long, or graduate at the same rate as those with wealth. This was to their advantage, as the Jesuit curriculum did not prepare students for useful employment. It produced scores of unemployed or underemployed clerics, lawyers and writers. For landlord apologists like Robert Persons, S.J. (1546-1610), the slander of work and working people was habitual. Thomas Law, A Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between the Jesuits and the Seculars (London: D. Nutt, 1899), p. xxx, comments:

The scorn and ridicule with which Persons seemed to regard low birth and poverty, and his habit of taunting his opponents on that score, are notable features in his method of controversy.

[72]B. G. Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, Cheltenham Society Series, 1978), no. 25, p. 172

[73]Philip Massinger attacked the servility of these domestic chaplains in the character of "Parson Willdo." See Massinger, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, p. 97, Act IV, sc. iii, line 127. Christopher Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 31 (1981), 145, comments on the problem:

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! The fact that English Catholicism became more and more seigneurial in structure does not demonstrate the crucial role of the gentry in its survival: that was the way it was, but not the way it had to be.

[74]Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 227-228, 237. There were about 450 secular priests and 300 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.

[75]Ibid., p. 231.

[76]Leander Jones, "Apostolici Status Missionis in Anglia," in Edward Hyde, Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers Preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University (1767-1786 edn.), ed. F. J. Routledge (4 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), vol. 1, pp. 199-200. In addition, the ordered clergy, such as the Jesuits and Benedictines, were by their beliefs, constitutions, and biases restricted from the BCC pastoral-congregational-parish employment. See 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; Ignatius Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, trans. George Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970), p. 215, part vii, ch. 2, paragraph 622 d-c; see also, pp. 267-271, pt. 7, ch. 1, pars. 603-617. Robert Southwell, S.J., one of the first ordered priests in the country after the Reformation, was a domestic chaplain to the countess of Arundel. He was critical of fellow priests who served laboring people through the BCC 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." See Robert Southwell, quoted in Haigh, English Reformation Revised, p. 198. Another priest, William Andleby was criticized by the landlords for lowering the priestly dignity by dressing as, living among, and serving congregations of laboring people. Thomas Aquinas, an ordered priest himself, had taught that the secular clergy who served in parishes belonged to a "lower grade of perfection" than the ordered clergy, whose only employment was prayer. See Thomas Aquinas, Questiones quodlibetales, ed. R. Spiazzi (Taurino: Casa Marietti, 1956), I. 7, 2; III. 6, 3; Leonard Boyle, Pastoral Care, Clerical Education and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London: Variorum, 1981), pt. II, p. 251.

[77]Quoted in Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority," p. 144.

[78]Henry Foley, S.J., (ed.), Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., [1875], 1966), vol. 3, pp. 70-71.

[79]Nicholas Postgate, quoted in Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority," p. 145. Other priests who served BCCs are listed in 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). Among these were John Sugar, Roger Cadwallader, who walked a circuit for 16 years, Thomas Somers who lived with the workers, and William Southerner, ibid., p. 359. A majority of the clergy in the established church like that in the Catholic church were not interested in serving laboring people. In areas with wealth there was one Anglican priest per 400 people, while in Lancashire's 56 Anglican parishes, it was 1,700 people per priest. Catholic priests willing to serve a circuit in exchange for a meal with a family and a night's rest under their roof had unlimited congregations. Christopher Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 22.

[80]Bossy, English Catholic Community, pp. 252, 262.

[81]Ibid., pp. 252-253.

[82]Francis Moloney, A Life of Promise: Poverty, Chastity, Obedience (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985), pp. 70-71; see also, p. 127, where he comments, “The kingdom preached by Jesus turns the world and the values of the world upside down. It is the world shattering, counter-cultural promise of God’s loving gift to a struggling humanity.”

[83]Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, [1776] 1937), p. 30, observed, "labor was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased."

[84]Ronald Meek, Studies in the Labor Theory of Value (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1973), p. 14.

[85]Quoted in Edmond Fitzmaurice, Life of William Petty (London: J. Murray, 1895), p. 3.

[86]William Petty, Treatise on Taxes and Contribution, in Charles Hull (ed.), The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), vol. 1, p. 36.

[87]Richard Weston (1591-1652), A Discourse of Husbandrie used in Brabant and Flanders Showing the Wonderful improvement of land there serving as a pattern for our practice in this Commonwealth (London: William DuGard, 1650), p. 6.

[88]Bolton, Cities Advocate, p. 15.

[89]Ibid., p. 35.

[90]Thomas Hawkins (d. 1640), A View of the Real Power of the Pope (London: n.p., [1639] 1733), p. 508.

[91]Vivien Brodsky, "Widows in Late Elizabethan London: Remarriage, Economic Opportunity, and Family Orientations," The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure, ed. Lloyd Bonfield, et al (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), p. 145.

[92]T. E., The Laws Resolutions of Women's Rights or the Laws Provision for women: a Methodical Collection of such statutes and customs with the Cases, Opinions, Arguments and points of learning in the Law, as do properly concern Women (New York: Garland, [1632], 1978), p. 6. The revolutionary Catholic dramatist, Philip Massinger in The King and the Subject (1636), a play which Charles I called "insolent" and banned, mocked capital's family ideal as an imitation of that of ancient Roman senators, whose "wives and daughters bowed to their wills as deities." See Adler, Philip Massinger, p. 115.

[93]Ignatius Loyola, The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, ed. Louis Puhl, S.J. (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1951), p. 145, paragraph 325.

[94]In 1641 about 4.5 million acres or 15 to 20% of England's 25 million cultivated acres was monopolized by 200 families. These were mainly peers, that is dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. The peerage was established by law as a separate order and their yearly rental income as a group amounted to £600,000 or about 5s to 8s per acre. Fifteen percent (20 out of 125) of the peers were Catholics. In addition to the peerage, about 50% of the land was owned by less than 20,000 landlords or 1% of England's population. Several thousand of these were Catholics. They took in the form of rent and the surplus value created by wage labor about one-third of the annual wealth produced by tenants and labor. See F. M. Thompson, "The Social Distribution of Landlord Property in England since the Sixteenth Century," Economic History Review, 19 (1966), 509-510, 513-514; Edward Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, The Population History of England, 1541-1871: A Reconstruction (London: Edward Arnold, 1981), p. 208; Brian Magee, The English Recusants (London: Burns and Oates, 1938), pp. 138-149.

[95]In the words of historian Christopher Hill in The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill: Religion and Politics in Seventeenth-Century England (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986), vol. 2, p. 174, antinomianism meant the repudiation of "all human law, not just Mosaic law."

[96]Thomas Collier, The Morrow of Christianity (London: 1646), pp. 60-61.

[97]Richard Greaves, "Revolutionary Ideology in Stuart England: The Essays of Christopher Hill," Church History, 56 (1987), 97.

[98]"Ordinance against Heresie" (November 20, 1646), in Henry Scobell (ed.), A Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use, Made in the Parliament, 1640-1656 (2 vols., London: Henry Mills, [1648], 1658), pp. 2, 150, cap. 114.

[99]See Adolph Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953), p. 418. Jesus in his attack on the Pharisees and Paul in his going against the Hebrew law were model antinomians from the leveler perspective.

[100]David Hall, The Antinomian Controversy, 1636-1638: The Documentary History (Middletown: Wesleyn University Press, 1968), p. 3; Chris Cook and John Wroughton, English Historical Facts: 1603-1688 (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 108.

[101]"Act Concerning Religion" (April 1649), Archives of Maryland (William H. Browne, ed., 72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, pp. 244-247. The act is commonly called the "Religious Toleration Act."

[102]James Gaffney, Augustine Baker's Inner Light: A Study in English Recusant Spirituality (Scranton, Pennsylvania: University of Scranton Press, 1989), p. 72; Jodi Bilinkoff, The Avila of Saint Teresa: Religious Reform in a Sixteenth-Century City (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 191; John O'Malley, "Early Jesuit Spirituality: Spain and Italy," Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupré and Dom E. Saliers (New York: Crossroad, 1989), vol. 18, pp. 15-16; Luis de la Puente, Vida del V. P. Baltasar Alvarez de la compañia de Jesus (Madrid: Aguardo, [1615] 1880), pp. 135-144, 441-451; Luis Puente, Meditations upon the Mysteries of our Faith. . . Abbridged (1605, 1624) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature; Louis Lallemant, S.J., La vie et la doctrine spirituelle du Père Louis Lallemant (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959; Aloys Pottier, Le Père Louis Lallemant et les grands spirituels de son temps (Paris: Tégui, 1927-1929).

[103]For a bibliography about these antinomians, see Edward Terrar, "Social Ideas among Post-Reformation Catholic Laboring People: The Evidence from Civil War England in the 1640s," History of European Ideas, 14 (1992), 666-668.

[104]James Gaffney, Augustine Baker's Inner Light: A Study in English Recusant Spirituality (Scranton, Pennsylvania: University of Scranton Press, 1989), p. 72.

[105]Simon Strong, Shining Path: Terror and Revolution in Peru (New York: Random House, 1992), pp. p. 65.

[106]Ibid., pp. 48, 93.

[107]The secular priests William Rushworth and Henry Holden wrote that it was wrong to look to the law and scripture like the pharisee, "We should look to our own hearts: Christ's law is written in a Christian's heart." See William Rushworth, Rushworth's Dialogue, or, the Judgment of Common Sense in the Choice of Religion (Paris: n.p., 1640), pp. 555-556; see also, Austin, Christian Moderator, (first part), p. 73. In justifying the overthrow of the Crown, Holden in The Analysis of Divine Faith, or Two Treatises of the Resolution of Christian Belief (Paris: n.p., [1652, 1655] 1658), p. 358, remarked that the royalist "sycophants" did "basely flatter all supreme power and act as if we ought to look upon them as to be worshiped and adored as Gods." Catholic millennialist Thomas White, wrote of the imminent rule of the saints on earth during which capital would be redistributed to workers, social injustice would be eradicated for a thousand years prior to the final judgment day and a "third age of the church" would be established. See S. W., A Vindication of the Doctrine in Pope Benedict XII, his Bull, and the General Councils of Florence Concerning the State of Dependent Souls, wherein the purposes of Master White's lately maintained Purgatory is laid open (Paris: n.p., 1659), pp. 140-141, which condemned White's millennial doctrine. White denied there was immediate judgment after death. Judgment would come only with the millennium. In Grounds of Obedience, pp. 133, 147, 152, 170, White justified the execution of the king in 1649 as for the "public good."

[108]Thomas White, The Grounds of Obedience and Government: Being the Best Account to All that has been Lately Written in Defense of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance (Farnsborough, England: Gregg International Publishers, [1649, 1655, 1659, 1685], 1968), p. 28.

[109]Ibid., p. 169.

[110]Ibid., p. 142. About the anti-yoke symbolism used by White, the historian Christopher Hill, "The Norman Yoke," Democracy and the Labor Movement, ed. John Saville (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1954), pp. 1, 12, 57, 66, has remarked on its long-standing popularity with the working class, especially during the Civil War. It had been a theme since the Norman Conquest.

[111]White, The Grounds of Obedience, pp. 22, 25; see also, Thomas White, Religion and Reason Mutually Corresponding and Assisting Each Other (Paris: n.p., 1660); Kenneth Campbell, The Intellectual Struggle of the English Papists in the Seventeenth Century, the Catholic Dilemma (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellon Press, 1986), pp. 83, 96.

[112]René Fülöp-Miller, The Power and Secret of the Jesuits (New York: G. Braziller, 1956), p. 158, writes about the preference of the Jesuits for the legalism of the established order:

All the basic principles of the entire Jesuit moral philosophy can be traced back to the Nicomachean Ethics. . . . The Jesuits have, from the outset, striven by all available means to secure a predominant influence for Aristotle’s teachings in the moral philosophy of their age. In the first rules which the order laid down for the training in their schools, it was provided that philosophy and physical science were to be taught “not only in accordance with truth, but also in accordance with the teachings and the spirit of Aristotle.” When, then, the Ratio Studiorum, or detailed regulations governing instruction in all Jesuit schools and colleges, was compiled, the authors of this work expressly emphasized that the instructions were “never to deviate from Aristotle in matters of any importance.

[113]Landlord claims, as in Nicholas Caussin, The Holy Court, that the established order was predestined and inevitably were turned upside-down during the Civil War leveling. Because God predestinated them to rule, it was the duty of working people to be revolutionaries and overthrow the parasite system. Herbert Aptheker in Anti-Racism in U. S. History: The First Two Hundred Years (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1993), p. xiv, 197, cites the 1991 edition of this present study in tracing this revolutionary predestination theology down to contemporary times.

[114]Roland Mousnier, Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth-Century France, Russia, and China, trans. Brian Pearce (New York: Harper and Row, 1972); C. S. Davies, "Peasant Revolt in France and England: A Comparison," Agricultural History Review, 21 (1973), 122-134; Charles Korr, Cromwell and the New Model Foreign Policy: England's Policy toward France, 1649-1658 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), p. 9.

[115]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 170.

[116]Joseph Gillow (ed.), "Inigo Jones," A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics (London: Burns and Oates, 1885-1902), vol. 3, p. 652.

[117]This included the Servile War (73-71 B.C.) led by Spartacus. See Plutarch, "Crassus," Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (London: G. Miller, 1631 [trans. John Dryden, 1932]), pp. 650-674.

[118]Ibid., "Solon."

[119]Julius Caesar, Bellum Gallicum, VI, 22: 3-4, called the German communal system of land tenure barbaric.

[120]Plutarch, "Tiberius Gracchus" Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, section 9.5; Engbert Jonkers, Social and Economic Commentary on Cicero's Agraria Orationes tres (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), p. 119; John Riddle (ed.), Tiberius Gracchus: Destroyer or Reformer of the Republic (Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath, 1970).

[121]John Freese, "Introduction," Cicero: The Speeches with an English Translation, . . De Lege Agraria I, II, III (New York: Putnam, 1930), p. 322.

[122]Niccolo Machiavelli, Niccolo Machiavel's Discourses upon the First Decade of Livius (London: Daniel Parker, 1663), III, 24, I, 37.

[123]John Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum Angliae: English and Latin (London: Company of Stationers, 1616 [S. B. Chrimes, trans., 1942]), p. 39.

[124]John Davies, A History of Wales (London: Penguin Press, 1993), p. 68.

[125]Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order, p. 146. As for abolition of the slave system, church father Tertullian (d. 230) in Apologeticus had equated with demons the Catholic slaves who sought to overthrow the system in the third century.

[126]Todd, Christian Humanism, pp. 64-65, 71,78, 84; John O'Malley, "Renaissance Humanism and the Religious Culture of the First Jesuits," Heythrop Journal, 31 (1990), 473, 478. One of the lessons in Livy's Ab urbe condita, and Cicero's three consular orations, De Lege agraria contra Rullum was that the laboring people could be fooled into acting against their own class if there was sufficient rhetoric involved, as when Cicero, speaking against agrarian reform, told them to live like the landlords on the public purse rather than disgrace themselves with productive labor. See Livy, The Roman History written by T. Livius of Padua (London: Sawbridge, 1659), II, 41; Cicero, Cicero: The Speeches with an English Translation. . . De Lege Agraria, I, II, III, trans. John Freese (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1930). Aristotle's Economics, Xenephon's Economist, and Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts advised that the working class be kept at a subsistence level. Otherwise, it was believed, they would not work. Surplus wealth belonged to the landlord.

[127]Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 42, p. 133, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 130, art. 2, ad. 2; vol. 37, p. 17; vol. 47, p. 5, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 183, art. 1.

[128]Aveling, Northern Catholics, pp. 212, 215, 220, 234, 274, 296, 316-317.

[129]Thomas Meynell, "The Recusancy Papers of the Meynell Family," Miscellanea, ed. Hugh Aveling (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1964), vol. 56, pp. xxxvii, 78-79.

[130]David Allen, In English Ways: The Movement of Societies and the Transferal of English Local Law and Customs to Massachusetts Bay in the Seventeenth Century (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1981), p. 38.

[131]Ibid., p. 39.

[132]Philip Massinger, The Emperor of the East (London: 1631), as quoted in Adler, Philip Massinger, p. 87.

[133]Historian Richard Tawney in Business and Politics under James I: Lionel Cranfield as Merchant and Minister (New York: Russell & Russell, [1958] 1976), pp. 10, 289-294, outlines the life of Lionel Cranfield (1575-1645), who was England’s High Treasurer for a brief period in the early 1620s. Cranfield fought an unsuccessful battle against the royal entourage, which he called “the great men not fit for work of labor.” These men, including George Calvert, were incurring unmanageable national debt with their foreign wars and “lavish grants and gifts” extorted by “fraud and deception.” See also, Linda Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England (New York: HarperCollins Academic, 1990).

[134]J. Anthony Williams, Catholic Recusancy in Wiltshire, 1660-1791 (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1968), p. 183; James Foster, George Calvert: The Early Years (Baltimore, Md.: Historical Society, 1983), pp. 26, 28, 32-33, 48.

[135]C. V. Wedgwood, Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strafford, 1593-1641: A Revaluation (London: Jonathan Cape, 1961), p. 68.

[136]Ibid., p. 233; Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges and Figges, 1923), vol. 1, p. 368.

[137]As a royalist member of Parliament, George had been one of only four members who supported the Crown's predatory domestic and foreign policies in the 1620s. He had been under threat of permanent banishment because, as John Krugler put it in "Our Trusting and Well Beloved Counselor: The Parliamentary Career of George Calvert, 1609-1624," Maryland Historical Magazine, 72 (1977), pp. 484-485, see also, pp. 486-487, he was "often expressing the very words his colleagues least wanted to hear." His defense of crown patents and money lenders included a tobacco concession given to Thomas Roe in 1620 and the Newfoundland and North American fishing concessions. In the fishing monopoly he had had a personal interest. These licenses had been given to raise funds for the Crown. The increased prices paid by consumers had been popularly understood to be a form of taxation without the consent of Parliament. Against Calvert's wishes, Parliament enacted legislation against monopolies in 1624. At the same time he took a hand against those like Edwin Sandys who opposed patents and monopolies. Sandys as a member of Parliament had been jailed on the pretense of having sought to establish a Puritan republic in Virginia. See G. E. Aylmer, Rebellion or Revolution? England from Civil War to Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 5; Richard Davis, George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer: A Study in Anglo-American Culture in the Seventeenth Century (London: Bodley Head, 1955), pp. 110, 262, 264.

[138]Thomas Macaulay, quoted in Wedgwood, Thomas Wentworth, p. 70.

[139]O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 2, pp. 706-712; Wedgwood, Thomas Wentworth, p. 392, discuss the fraud used by among others, the English and Irish Catholic gentry, including those like George Calvert, to make their plantations in Wexford.

[140]Those in the Spanish party included Thomas Howard (1585-1646), Earl of Arundel, who was later general of the army against the Scots and who escorted Queen Henrietta Maria to the continent in 1642. Also among the Spanish party was Henry Somersett (1577-1646), Earl of Worcester, who provided funds to Charles I; Richard Weston, Earl of Portland (1577-1635), who was chancellor of exchequer and then lord high treasurer (1628-1633); and John Digby, Earl of Bristol (1580-1653), who as ambassador of James I had done the negotiations (1611-1624) for the Spanish marriage.

[141]Goring's father-in-law was Richard Boyle. Early in the century Boyle had introduced some new types of manufacturing into Ireland and made a fortune. Prior to Wentworth, Boyle in conjunction with Goring had held the tobacco monopoly which had been centered at Galway. Boyle had also profited as a banker for the bills of exchange issued for imports and exports. This business too was taken by Wentworth. See John Morris, "The Lords Baltimore," Fund Publications (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1874), vol. 8, p. 12; O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1, pp. 369-370, 372; Thomas Leland, The History of Ireland from the Invasion of Henry II (3 vols., Dublin: B. Smith, 1814), p. 19.

[142]The 10,000-strong Catholic-Irish mercenary army raised by Wentworth to counter the rebellious Scots, was not used by the Long Parliament, who feared it would turn sides. It was then supposed to have been sent off to Spain to be used as a mercenary force in the Thirty Years' War against the internal insurrection of the Spanish people. But the Puritans objected to aiding the Hapsburg imperialists and sought to disband the army without paying it one-half the wages owed to it. Many of the troops remained in Ireland, where they gave muscle to the rebellion in which the Catholics retook their farms which British capitalists like Wentworth and Calvert had robbed. The Protestant Royalists, led by James Butler, Earl of Ormonde, gave support to the rebellion by the mid-1640s. The Catholic-Protestant Irish retained power until 1649-1650, when they were defeated by Parliament. They were defeated because the Protestant Royalists and Irish Catholics were not able to effectively unite their forces. See M. Perceval-Maxwell, The Outbreak of the Irish Rebellion of 1641 (Buffalo: McGill-Queens University Press, 1994); R. A. Stradling, The Spanish Monarchy and Irish Mercenaries: The Wild Geese in Spain, 1618-1668 (Portland, Oregon: Irish Academic, 1994).

[143]G. E. Aylmer, The King's Servants: The Civil Service of Charles I, 1625-1642 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1961] 1974), pp. 110, 205; Russell Menard, "The Lords Baltimore and the Colonization of Maryland," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), p. 173; William Browne, George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert (New York: University Press, 1890), p. 31.

[144]James Foster, George Calvert: The Early Years (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1983), p. 80.

[145]These connections assisted him in maintaining the patent against those in Virginia and London who wished to abolish or obtain it for themselves. During the 1630s Calvert's connections included, in addition to Wentworth, Francis Windebank, who was secretary of state from 1632 to 1640, John Harvey, governor of Virginia between 1630 and 1639, Tobie Matthew, William Peaseley, Richard Lechford, Thomas Motham, and those on Archbishop William Laud's Commission for Foreign Plantations. Later, when Parliament took over, Cecil Calvert got on good terms with Bulstrode Whitelocke and Thomas Widdrington, who were government officials. Whitelocke was one of the four commissioners of the great seal under the Commonwealth and president of the council of state. Bribery with grants of land to London merchants and political leaders were part of Calvert's system for keeping good will. See Cecil Calvert, "Letters to Francis Windebank" (September 15, 1634, February 25, 1637, March 1637), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, pp. 25, 41-43; Francis Windebank, "Letter to John Harvey," ibid., vol. 3, pp. 26; John Harvey, "Letters to Francis Windebank" (December 16, 1634 and July 14, 1635), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 30, 38-39; "Order of the Council of State" (July 31, 1656), ibid., vol. 3, p. 320; Hughes, Society of Jesus, vol. 2, text, p. 56; Patents 4:19-20; Q 459-480, HR.

[146]J. Anthony Williams, Catholic Recusancy in Wiltshire, 1660-1791 (Newport, England: Catholic Record Society, 1968), pp. 201-202; Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), p. 44.

[147]Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters in England under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 110.

[148]George Harrison, "Royalist Organization in Wiltshire, 1642-1646," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1963, p. 185; Edmund Ludlow, Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow (London: A. Millar, 1751), vol. 1, pp. 57, 70, 221, 449-450. The rank and file Catholics in the king's army that came to retake Wardour castle, themselves proved to be revolutionaries. In November 1643, the Royalists attempted to win Wardour castle back from Parliament by laying siege to it. In the attempt Irish Catholic soldiers were used under the command of William Vavasour of York. Because they were not properly paid, the Irish broke off the siege and mutinied against the Royalists. Henry Arundell, the third baron of Wardour, who was the nephew of Cecil Calvert's wife, came with his royal troops and put down the mutiny by executing three of the Irish as ringleaders.

[149]Christopher Clay, "Landlords and Estate Management in England," in Joan Thirsk (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1640-1750 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1985), vol. 5, part 2, pp. 133-134.

[150]David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 220, describes one of the confrontations that Calvert had:

Calvert threatened such as were absent, that he would re-enter upon their tenements. A few asked by what right he held court, and demanded the order when he said that it was by warrant of the county committee. Baltimore was under sequestration; at least one copyholder was not satisfied and refused to take the homager's oath.

[151]Clay,"Landlords and Estate Management," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 123.

[152]J. P. Cooper, "In Search of Agrarian Capitalism," The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. T. H. Ashton (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 172.

[153]Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 159.

[154]H. J. Habakkuk, "Landowners and the Civil War," Journal of Economic History, 18 (1969), 131.

[155]Lawrence Stone, "The Crisis of Aristocracy," Social Change and Revolution in England: 1540-1640, ed. Lawrence Stone (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1965), p. 79

[156]Joan Thirsk, "Agricultural Policy: Public Debate and Legislation," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 318. Because many areas lacked good water transport facilities to London or the coast, these areas were not attractive for grain production. Hence the tendency for landlords to enclose and give over to wool production.

[157]Christopher Hill, God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London: 1970), pp. 18, 61; Roger Manning, Village Revolts: Social Protest and Popular Disturbance in England, 1509-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

[158]Richardson, "Metropolitan Counties," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, p. 240.

[159]Philip Massinger, A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. George Stronach (London: J. M. Dent, [1625] 1904), Act IV, sc. i, lines 145-146.

[160]Cyril Hart, Free Miners of the Royal Forest of Dean (Gloucester: British Book Co., 1953), p. 175.

[161]John Krugler, "Introduction," in Robert Wintour, To Live Like Princes: A Short Treatise concerning the New Plantation Now Erecting in Maryland, (Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library, [1635] 1976), p. 8.

[162]For a bibliography on Wintour, see Edward Terrar, "Royalists or Diggers? Catholics in the English Civil War," Science and Society, 57 (1993), pp. 327-329. Wintour's biographer, Dictionary of National Biography, (London: Oxford University Press, 1921-1922), vol. 21, p. 685, comments, "The leases were a source of great wealth, for during his eleven years rule without parliamentary supplies, Charles borrowed largely of Wintour."

[163]Cyril Hart, The Commoners of Dean Forest (Gloucester: British Publishing Co., 1951), pp. 25-26, 57.

[164]Ibid., p. 3, 27, 34.

[165]Buchanan Sharp, "Popular Protest in Seventeenth-Century England," in Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martins's Press, 1985), p. 297. Those who lived in royal forests were especially militant because the Crown's forest law governed. Forest law gave tenants fewer legal remedies than common law. This made rioting, petitioning, leveling, and illegality a necessity in maintaining rights.

[166]Margo Todd, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 151.

[167]Bossy, English Catholic Community, p. 87.

[168]Every profession of men and women had its own patron saints whose virtues were held up for emulation and on whose feast days no work was done. As a substitute for labor saints, the pope attempted to offer a list of Roman ecclesiastical saints, such as popes, bishops, and members of religious orders, none of whom ever had a working class following. See John Cosin, The Works of the right Rev. Father in God, John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham, ed. J. Sansom (5 vols., Oxford: John Parker, 1855), vol. 1, Sermon X, p. 142; Keith Luria, "The Counter-Reformation and Popular Spirituality," Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York: Crossroad, 1989), p. 110.

[169]Pope Urban VIII in 1642 sought to reduce the number of holydays of obligation to 34, not including Sundays. See Hugh Aveling, The Catholic Recusants of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (Leeds: Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, 1963), p. 225; Edgar Furniss, The Position of the Laborer in a System of Nationalism: A Study in the Labor Theories of Later English Mercantilists (New York: Kelly and Millman, 1957), pp. 24, 201. Thomas Clancy, S.J., Papist Pamphleteers: The Allen-Persons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England, 1572-1615 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964), p. 42, writes about the ambitions of Robert Persons, S.J., an apologist for capitalism:

As for the commons, their economic welfare was to be made the responsibility of their feudal lords. In England there was great inequality among the members of the third estate. . . It was said some gave themselves the airs of gentlemen. This social mobility was to be stopped.

[170]This idea of a race based on blood paralleled the type of racial beliefs based on national origins, language, religion and color which resulted in those of African and semitic origin not being allowed at the time to attend various Catholic colleges, enter some religious orders, or gain church offices. James Lockhart and Stuart Schwartz in Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 225, discussed the "purity of blood" (limpeça de sangue) code used against Spanish Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism:

Discrimination against Jews was now continued as discrimination against new Christians, regardless of the depth of their adherence to Christianity. The stigma carried from generation to generation, and a man whose family knew nothing of Judaism might still find a new Christian grandmother given as the reason for exclusion from office, positions or honors. What were supposedly religious distinctions and discriminations became ethnic, supported by the code of "purity of blood." A profound faith in Christianity did not free an individual from the weight of his origin.

See Colin Palmer, Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 54; Richard Hoffman, "Outsiders by Birth and Blood: Racist Ideologies and Realities around the Periphery of Medieval European Culture," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, ns 6 (1983), 14-20.

[171]Caussin, Holy Court, vol. 1, p. 7.

[172]Joseph de Guibert, The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice, A Historical Study (Chicago: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1964), p. 575; Ellen M. Wood, Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 3-4, 142; Adrian Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. vii, 2. Rome's racism led to its defeat in 9 A.D. Velleius Paterculus (19 B.C.-30 A.D.) wrote of Varius, the leader of three Roman legions that were defeated:

He entertained the notion that the Germans were a people who were a people only in voice and limbs. With this idea in mind, he entered the heart of Germany as though he was going among a people enjoying the blessings of peace.

See M. Velleius Paterculus: cum notis Gerardi Vossii (Compendium of Roman History, Amsterdam: 1639), 2:117.

[173]Aristotle, The Politics, ed. Benjamin Jowitt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1885] 1920), p. 127, III, 13, 3. The early Christian and ancient classical writers found in the libraries of and cited by 17th-century landlords as authorities were themselves landlords and their dependents. See Virgilio Cepari, S.J., The Life of B. Aloysius Gonzaga ([1627], 1974) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 201, p. 347; Peter Holmes, Resistance and Compromise: The Political Thought of the Elizabethan Catholics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 180; Herbert Adams, Catalogue of Books Printed on the Continent of Europe 1501-1600 in Cambridge Libraries (2 vols., London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), vol. 1, vol. 1, p. 693-694. These included the fifth-century Macrobius in Saturnalia, Pseudo-Dionysius in The Celestial Hierarchy, Augustine in The City of God, and the sixth-century Gregory the Great (Pope Gregory I) in The Pastoral Care. See Pseudo-Dionysius, The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, ed. John Parker (Merrick, N.Y.: Richwood Publishers, [1899] 1976), pp. 13, 440. Augustine was typical in using the argument of the superior nature of the slave-owning class to justify slavery, "The justice of masters dominating slaves is clear, because those who excel in reason should excel in power." See Augustine, quoted by Charles Verlinden, "Slavery," in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Strayer (New York: Scribner, 1989), vol. 11, p. 334. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 37, p. 11, 2a-2ae, q. 57, art. 3, took the same position, "Aristotle says, it is expedient for the slave to be ruled by a wiser whom he serves. Servitude, which is part of the jus gentium [international law] is natural [law]."

[174]Bolton, Cities Advocate, p. 20.

[175]Ibid., p. 49.

[176]Lester Little, Liberty, Charity, Fraternity: Lay Religious Confraternities at Bergamo in the Age of the Commune (Northampton, Massachusetts: Smith College, 1988), pp. 35-36.

[177]Paul Seaver, The Puritan Lectureship: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1662 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970), p. 74.

[178]Bolton, Cities Advocate, pp. 20-21.

[179]Ibid., pp. 18, 21.

[180]Ronald Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: a Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Hague: Martin Nijhoff, 1969), p. 104.

[181]Persons, A Memorial of the Reformation of England, pp. 220-224, 256-257.

[182]See Thomas Clancy, S.J., Papist Pamphleteers: The Allen-Persons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England, 1572-1615 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964), p. 42, who discusses Robert Persons, S.J. and the gentry’s hatred of social mobility for working people.

[183]Archbishop Salvian of Marseille, Quis Dives Salvus: How a Rich Man May be Saved, written to the Catholic Church of Marseille about the year 480 (1618) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 170, pp. 75, 82.

[184]Meynell, as quoted in Aveling, Northern Catholics, p. 287.

[185]Caussin, Holy Court, pt. 1, p. 182.

[186]Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1, vol. 1, p. 301.

[187]Ibid., tome 1, p. 16; Gillow, A Literary, vol. 3, p. 195.

[188]Classical Roman writings against laboring people which were popular with 17th-century capital included Cicero's On Moral Obligation (De Officiis), trans. John Higginbotham (London: Faber, 1967), pp. 92-93, book 1, chapter 42, par. 150-152, which stated, "Equally ungentlemanly and sordid are the earnings of hired hands who are paid for their physical efforts rather than their skill; for the very wages they receive are a token of slavery." Roman religion and Roman gods were similarly used against laboring people. For example when the pontifices were going to offer sacrifices, calcatores (servants, attendants) were sent to order workers to stop so they would not defile the eyes of the priests and the rites of the gods. The presence of working people defiled holy rites. See Suetonius, Claudius, ed. J. Mothershead (Bristol: British Classical Library, [120 A.D.] 1986), p. 91, XXII. Also used against the working class was canon law, which in the 17th century outlawed the clergy from employment such as being carpenters, laborers, and plowmen. Such manual labor was said to lower the dignity of the priesthood. See Corpus Juris Canonici, vol. 3, Clemmentis V Constitutiones, etc. (Rome: Populi Romani, 1582), vol. 3, c. 1, III, 1.

[189]Gregory I, Pope, Pastoral Care in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, ed. Henry Davis, S.J. (Westminster, Md.: Newman Publishers, 1950), vol. 11, p. 60, part 2, chapter 6.

[190]Gregory I, Pope, Morals on the Book of Job, trans. John Parker (3 vols., London: Series Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, J. Rivington Co., 1844), chapter xxi, paragraph 22.

[191]John Abbot, Jesus Praefigured or a Poem of the Holy Name of Jesus ([1623] 1970), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 54, pp. 22-23.

[192]Thomas Aquinas, Questiones quodlibetales, ed. R. Spiazzi (Taurino: Casa Marietti, 1956), p. 173, q. 8, art. 7, ad. 17; Aquinas, On the Governance of Rulers, pp. 53-60, bk. 1, ch. 6.

[193]Nicholas Cushner, S.J., Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767 (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982), p. 38. The classical Roman leaders, like present-day imperialism, violated international law, murdered or enslaved prisoners and hostages, and generally sacrificed working-class life to advance their own class. They justified themselves by saying the victims did these acts. For example, Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, 40, 30, 1-3, in The Works of Tacitus, Oxford Translation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1865), vol. 1, p. 373, explained the Roman army's sacrifice of British life at Anglesey, including druid rebel women, by using the lie that the Britons were barbarians and sacrificed life. Similar discussion about the evil of the Germans, Gauls, and others for justifying aggression against them is in Tacitus, Germania, 39, 2 in ibid., vol. 2, p. 331; in Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro M. Fonteio, in The Speeches with an English Translation. . . Pro M. Fonteio (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), pp. 21-33; and in Julius Caesar, "Bellum Gallicum" (III, 16: 3-5; III, 19: 4-5), in Conquest of Gaul, trans. S. A. Handford (Baltimore: Penguin Classic, 1951), p. 100; Keith Schellhase in Tacitus: In Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), xi, 150-154, 164, notes that the working class used Tacitus for their own purposes, stressing his accounts about tyrants and their crimes, to attack the 17th-century capitalist system.

[194]Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed. Mason Dock (New York: Hafner Pub., 1948), vol. 2, p. 324, bk. 19, ch. 15. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), as a bishop, was a puppet for Roman imperialism in Northern Africa. He fought the working class and its liberation theology there. Among the revolutionaries were the Donatists. G. E. Sainte Croix in The Class Struggle in the Ancient World (London: Duckworth, 1981), p. 482, commented concerning their liberation struggle:

These fanatics, barbarous as they might seem to the landlord class, were anything but a terror to the poor, for we hear of them threatening to punish moneylenders who exacted payment from peasants, and forcing landlords to dismount from their carriages and run before them while their slaves drove, or to do slave work at the mill.

The Donatists did not let clerical dogma about ordination and sacraments interfere with leveling capitalist clergy. Augustine himself escaped revolutionary justice when North Africa was liberated from Roman rule in 430 A.D. only because he died as Hippo was being taken. The Donatists’ resistance to Augustine’ clerical imperialism is detailed in historian Terry Sullivan’s The Church of the Empire Versus the Christian Church of North Africa, 312-430 AD (Denver, Colorado: Christian Radical Press, 2003, http://radicalchristianpress.org/default.aspx), see especially pp. 30, 39, 57, 85.

[195]Caussin's Holy Court, vol. 1, p. 100.

[196]L. B. [Lord Baltimore, George Calvert], The Answer to the Judgment of a Divine upon the Letter of the Lay Catholics, to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon (1631) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 55, pp. 49-53, illustrates the gentry’s use of Aquinas as an authority.

[197]J. A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D'Aquino, His Life, Thought and Work (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), pp. 7-8, 15-18.

[198]Hugh Kearney, Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain, 1500-1700 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970). Margo Todd, Christian Humanism, p. 73, suggests the reason for Aquinas's revival, from Rome's perspective, was the need for an authority to counter scripture and the priesthood of believers. Aquinas belonged to a religious order, the Dominicans, which unlike the secular clergy, was directly under Rome's control. He and his order were part of Rome's ecclesiastical aggression. Christopher Ryan (ed.), The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989), p. 194, comments that Aquinas taught that bishops derived their spiritual powers directly from the pope, not from divine right, that is, not from God through consecration as a bishop nor from the sacrament of Holy Orders, nor from election by the people.

[199]Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 41, pp. 221-224, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 117, art. 1, ad. 1.

[200]Ibid., vol. 14, pp. 126-127, pt. 1a, q. 108, art. 2; vol. 41, pp. 222-223, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 117, art. 2, ad. 2.

[201]Robert Bellarmine, S.J., The Soul's Ascension to God, by the Steps of Creation ([1616] 1970), trans. Francis Young, in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 22, p. 166, a widely read Thomistic theologian of the period, commented:

Things are so much the more noble, and eminent, by how much the more pure, and more abstracted from matter. This we see first in corporeal things: for water is superior to earth in nature, because purer. On the same account, air is superior to water, fire to air, and heaven to fire. We see the same thing in spiritual things. For the understanding is superior to sense, because sense has a bodily organ, which the understanding needs not. The understanding of an angel is superior to that of man, because man needs the ministry of imagination and fancy, which an angel does not. Among angels, those are of a superior rank, who understand most things by the general species. God, only is a pure act, and stands in need of nothing without himself, neither organ, imagination, nor species. No, not the presence of any object without himself, but his essence itself is all things to him. . . On these accounts I say the divine nature is most high and sublime, and God can by no means have an equal.

[202]William of Ockham, Opus nonaginta dierum (The work of Ninety Days (1333-1334); F. C. Copleston, A History of Medieval Philosophy (London: Methuen, [1972]), p. 255; John Kilcullen, “The Political Writings,” The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, ed. Paul V. Spade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 302-319.

[203]Philotheus Boettner, OFM, Ockham: Philosophical Writings (London: Nelson, 1957), pp. xii, xiv, l; William of Ockham, Octo questiones super potestate ac dignitate papali (Eight Questions Concerning the Power and Dignity of the Pope (1339-1342); William of Ockham, De imperatorum et pontificum potestate (Dialogue between Master and Disciples upon the Power of Emperors and Popes, ed. C.K. Brampton, Oxford: University Press, [1334-1338], 1927).

[204]Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1935). The Irish revolutionary, James Connolly, in Labor, Nationality and Religion (Dublin: Harp Library, 1910), reprinted in James Connolly, Selected Writings, ed. P. Bernesford Ellis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973), p. 70, likewise paid tribute to Ockham:

Materialism teaches that the ideas of men are derived from their material surroundings, and that the forces which made and make for historical changes and human progress had and have their roots in the development of the tools men have used in their struggle for existence, using the word "tools" in its broadest possible sense to include all the social forces of wealth production. Materialism teaches that since the break-up of common ownership and the clan community, all human history has turned around the struggle of contending classes in society--one class striving to retain possession, first of the persons of the other class and hold them as chattel slaves and then of the tools of the other class and hold them as wage slaves. That all the politics of the world resolved themselves in the last analysis into a struggle for the possession of that portion of the fruits of labor which labor creates, but does not enjoy, i.e., rent, interest, profit. Here let us say that no socialist claims for Marx the discovery or original formulation of the doctrine of the materialist conception of history--indeed, the brilliant Irish scholastic, Duns Scotus [meaning William of Ockham], taught it in the middle ages.

[205]E. R. Billings, Tobacco: Its History, Varieties, Culture, Manufacture and Commerce (Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co. 1875), p. 51.

[206]Russell Menard, "Population, Economy and Society in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), 72. During the same period in Spanish Florida, there were 26,000 Indian Catholics in 40 missions with 70 Franciscan clergy. Earlier, the Jesuits had had missions there between 1566 and 1572. When 8 Jesuits were killed in 1572 while trying to establish a mission on the Chesapeake Bay, the order withdrew to Mexico. See Charlotte M. Gradie, "The Powhatans in the Context of the Spanish Empire," Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722, ed. Helen Rountree (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1993).

[207]John Lewger, "The Cases" (1638), in Thomas Hughes, S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), documents, vol. 1, p. 158.

[208]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. 95.

[209]Andrew White, S.J., A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), in Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), pp. 31, 40.

[210]Richard Gardiner, in St. Mary's City Commission, "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," [hereafter "Career Files"] (manuscript, Annapolis: Hall of Records)," box 10. The Maryland clergy had missions in Virginia and made regular visits there to minister to the Catholics. In terms of total numbers, both Virginia and the West Indies had more Catholics than Maryland in the second-half of the 17th century. This was because large numbers of Catholics were deported from or migrated from Ireland after their defeat in 1649-1650 by British imperialism in the form of Parliamentary troops and the confiscation of their land. They had hopes of a better life in the West Indies. Some 30,000 Irish Catholics were deported to Virginia, 60,000 to Barbados and 100,000 of both sexes to the tobacco islands of the West Indies. There were Irish Catholics in Maryland, but not in the large numbers that were sent elsewhere. There were frequent proposals for transporting Irish Catholics to Maryland, but Parliament did not encourage it. Among the early Virginia Catholics were the Italian glass makers who came in the 1610s. One source quoted in Richard Davis, George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer in Anglo-American Culture in the Seventeenth Century (London: The Bodley Head, 1955), pp. 113-114, 165, noted, "The temperamental glass men were a trial scarcely to be borne." The Virginia Company gave them a monopoly on round glass, drinking glass, and beads in order to induce them to set up a glass furnace and benefit Virginia with their skills. See also, Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, pp. 282-284; text, vol. 2, p. 25.

[211]One of the clergy remarked in a report to England, "For among the Protestants nearly all who came from England in 1638 and many others have converted to the faith." See Catholic Clergy, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1638), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 119, 122-123.

[212]Helen Rountree, Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), pp. 67, 137, discusses the assimilation of the Virginia Indians to Anglicanism in the 1640s and 1650s.

[213]The presence of the clergy at Indian marriages, funerals, feasts, and dances added to the occasion. The Indians also appreciated the clergy's baroque religious art: the silver and gold altar equipment, the vestments, liturgy, incense, and songs. See John Lewger and Jerome Hawley, A Relation of Maryland (1635) in Hall, Narratives, p. 87. Vincent Lapomarda, S.J., "The Jesuit Missions of Colonial New England," Essex Institute Historical Collections, 126 (April 1990), p. 104, discusses the similar attraction of the New England Indians to baroque art.

[214]James Axtell, "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 81 (1986), pp. 3, 5; "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1640), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 131-132. Christian Feest, "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, p. 242.

[215]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642) in Hall, Narratives, p. 136, stated that there were 130 Patuxent Catholics. "Conoy" was the Iroquoian language name for the Indian tribes of southern Maryland. Algonquian dialects were spoken from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Pamlico River in present-day North Carolina by tribes such as the Eastern and Western Abnaki (also known as Penobscot), Micmac, Massachusett (also known as Natick), Narragansett, Mohegan-Pequot-Montauk, Connecticut-Unguachog-Shinnecock, Loup, Mahican, Delaware, Powhatan (also known as Chickahominy) and Carolina. See Ives Goddard, Delaware Verbal Morphology: A Description and Comparative Study (New York: Garland Publishers, 1979), p. 2.

[216]Some 7,000 Catholic descendants of the Conoy presently live in St. Mary's and Charles County, Md. See Feest, "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," p. 247.

[217]Richard Middleton in his textbook, Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776 (3^rd edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, [1992] 2002), p. 498, in citing the 1996 version of this present study, expands on work life in colonial America.

[218]Quoted in 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. 39.

[219]"Nicholas Keiting versus Giles Brent" (January 15, 1649), Archives of Maryland (William H. Browne, ed., 72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, p. 468.

[220]Gerrard Winstanley, "Fire in the Bush," The Works of Gerrard Winstanley, ed. George H.Sabine (New York: Cornell University Press, 1941), p. 492. Winstanley's pamphlets were present in the Chesapeake. See John Butler, "Thomas Teackle's 333 Books: A Great Library on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1697," 49 William and Mary Quarterly (July 1992), p. 491.

[221]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 84.

[222]Ibid., p. 85; "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, p. 125.

[223]White, A Brief Relation, p. 44.

[224]Frederick Fausz, "Present at the `Creation': The Chesapeake World that Greeted the Maryland Colonists," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), p. 13. The ancestors of the Algonquian had migrated to North America from Asia at least 12,000 years ago.

[225]Third Assembly, "Proposed Act for Military Discipline," (March 19, 1639) ibid., vol. 1, pp. 77-78, provided that every person able to bear arms had to be provided arms by the head of household; 11th Assembly, "An Act for Militia" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 254-255, imposed a penalty of 100 pounds of tobacco for neglecting to furnish arms for contract workers; Leonard Calvert, "Orders in Case of Attack by Indians" (August 25, 1642), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 107-108. See also, Louis Scisco, "Evolution of Colonial Militia in Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 35 (1940), 166-167, 177.

[226]Nelson Rightmyer, Maryland's Established Church (Baltimore: Diocese of Maryland, 1956), p. 14; James Thomas, Chronicles of Colonial Maryland (Cumberland, Md.: Eddy Press, 1913), p. 41.

[227]Edwin Beitzell, The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County Maryland (Abell, Md.: n.p., 1976), pp. 7-8, 11, 25-26; William Treacy, Old Catholic Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missions (Swedenboro, N.J.: n.p., 1889), p. 59.

[228]Ibid., pp. 7, 10.

[229]Helen Rountree, Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), pp. 50, 81.

[230]Ibid., pp. 34-35.

[231]Ibid., p. 57.

[232]Ibid., pp. 50, 54, 56.

[233]Hilary Beckles, Afro-Caribbean Women and Resistance to Slavery in Barbados (London: Karnak House, 1988), p. 16.

[234]Ibid., p. 23. Richard Ligon, who wrote A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados (London: H. Moseley, 1657), p. 48, lived in Barbados between 1647 and 1650. He described the women workers carrying babies on their backs or laying them naked in the fields and being sucked during work breaks.

[235]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 5, 150.

[236]John Taylor, Arator, Being a Series of Agricultural Essays (Georgetown, District of Columbia: J. M. and J. B. Carter, 1813), p. 267.

[237]Main, Tobacco Colony, p. 33.

[238]Russell Menard, Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland (New York: Garland Pub., [1975], 1985), pp. 71-72, 239-240, 462, 490.

[239]Garry Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger's St. John's," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1982, pp. 45, 111.

[240]Ibid., p. 110; Menard, Economy and Society, pp. 71, 234, 475. Tobacco prices ranged from 3d to 6d per pound in the 1630s to 1d to 3d in the 1650s.

[241]Gloria Main, Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), p. 33.

[242]Henry Pope and Sepharinah Hack, "Deposition" (September 25, 1657), in Brown (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 10, p. 531.

[243]Main, Tobacco Colony, pp 177-178.

[244]Ibid., p. 41.

[245]"Court Business" (June 25, 1650), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 10, p. 27.

[246]Assembly, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 21, 1649), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 241.

[247]John McCusker and Russell Menard, The Economy of British America: 1607-1785 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), pp. 126-127.

[248]Robert Allen, Enclosure and the Yeomean: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands, 1450-1850 (New York: Clarendon Press, 1992).

[249]The practice of European servants running away from their masters was frequent enough that the landlords in the Maryland assembly in 1639 unsuccessfully proposed an act to make it unlawful for Europeans to reside with Indians who were not "christened." The masters believed that christened Indians would be unwilling to allow runaways to live with them. See "Proposed Act for Authority of Justice of the Peace" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 53.

[250]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 5.

[251]Fausz, "Present at the `Creation,'" p. 13; Frederick Fausz, "`To Draw Thither the Trade of Beavers': The Strategic Significance of the English Fur Trade in the Chesapeake, 1620-1660," "Le Castor Fair Tout": Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1985, ed. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, and Louise Dechene (Montreal: Lake St. Louis Historical Society, 1987), pp. 42-71.

[252]Frederick Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds, Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and their Development in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois Carr (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), p. 70. See also, Helen Rountree (ed.), Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1993.

[253]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 5.

[254]Ibid.; Charles Hudson, "Why the Southeastern Indians Slaughtered Deer," Indians, Animals, and the Fur Trades: A Criticism of Keepers of the Game, ed. Shephard Krech (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), pp. 155-176.

[255]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 145.

[256]Ibid., p. 131; Accomac County, "Wills, Deeds, and Orders, 1678-1682," p. 284, describes Robert Atkinson, an Indian, who owned a weir.

[257]Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Provincial" (March 1, 1648), in Hughes, Society of Jesus, documents, vol. 1, no. 8, Q. Arthur Middleton, "Toleration and the Established Church of Maryland," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 53 (1984), 13-14, discusses the "lay readers" who served in the absence of Anglican clergy.

[258]In all 12 priests were present in Maryland for periods of 6 months to 15 years during the period. When available the clergy officiated at religious activities. They celebrated mass on Sundays and gave catechetical lectures. On holy days they gave sermons. At the monthly militia training day session the clergy sometimes gave a sermon. Training day sermons by Protestant clergy were common in England and New England. See "Francis Fitzherbert," "Career Files," box 9; "William Rosewell," in "Career Files," box 21; "John Thimbleby," "Career Files," box 24, and "William Hawley," "Career Files," box 12; Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 2, pp. 52, 61; "Attorney General versus Fitzherbert" (October 5, 1658), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 41, p. 144; Marie L. Ahern, The Rhetoric of War: Training Day, The Militia, and the Military Sermon (Westport: Greenwood, 1989); Catholic Clergy, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1638), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 119, 122-123.

[259]Keith Luria, "The Counter-Reformation and Popular Spirituality," Catholic Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupré and Don Saliers (New York: Crossroads, 1989), pp. 102, 113.

[260]Desiderius Erasmus, "The Paraclesis" in John Olin (ed.), Christian Humanism and the Reformation: Selected Writings (New York: Fordham University Press, 1987); Butler, "Thomas Teackle's 333 Books," p. 471.

[261]Charles E. Smith, Religion Under the Barons of Baltimore (Baltimore: E. A. Lycett, 1899), p. 297.

[262]This was the point of the Catholic royalist army officer, Vivian Molyneux, in his translation of A Treatise of the Differences between the Temporal and Eternal. See Juan Eusebius Nieremberg, S.J., A Treatise of the Differences between the Temporal and Eternal, trans. Vivian Molyneux (London: n.p., 1672), pp. 52, 228, 261, 371. See also, Jean Puget de la Serre (d. 1665), The Sweet Thoughts of Death and Eternity (1632), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 142; Edward Maihew (d. 1625), A Paradise of Prayers and Meditations (1613), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 132.

[263]Some 8,000 English Catholic troops, half in the Scottish regiment under the Scotch Catholic Archibald Campbell, 7th Earl of Argyle, served in the Spanish Hapsburg army in the 1620s and 1630s against the Dutch during the Republic of the Seven United Provinces's war for independence. The conflict started in 1581 and lasted until 1648. It cost Spain £20 per head to get English Catholic soldiers to Flanders. Gold and silver mined in America was used by Spain to wage the war. See Godfrey Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, a Recusant Family (Newport, England: R. H. Johns, 1953), pp. 432-434; Geoffrey Parker, The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1559-1659: The Logistics of Spanish Victory and Defeat in the Low Countries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Garrat Barry, A Discourse of Military Discipline ([1634] 1978) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 389, intro. pp. 2-3, text p. 1; Aron G. Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture (Boston: Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 259; Nieremberg, S.J., A Treatise of the Differences, p. 364.

[264]Peter R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A Biographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Pub., 1981), p. 153.

[265]Gurevich, Categories of Medieval Culture, p. 242.

[266]Lewger and Hawley, A Relation of Maryland (1635), in Hall, Narratives, p. 88.

[267]Thomas E. Scrutton in Commons and Common Fields or, The History and Policy of the Laws Relating to Commons and Enclosures in England (New York: Burt Franklin, [1887], 1970), pp. 18-23, discusses the history of the thousand year custom among the English laboring people in protecting the institution of common land from landlord aggression. Similarly, usufruct was the ideal of the Franciscan religious order. The “spirituals” among them, as opposed to the “conventuals,” sought to own no property, either individually or institutionally, but rather to practice “poor use.” Poor use meant being like slaves or people without legal rights and without an abundance of things. They found contentment with poor housing, food and clothing. Kilcullen, “The Political Writings,” The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, pp. 305-306, 309.

[268]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 6.

[269]Kirke Kickingbird and Karen Ducheneaux, One Hundred Million Acres (New York: Macmillan, 1973), p. 1; Harold Fey and D'Arcy McNickle in Indians and Other Americans: Two Ways of Life Meet (rev. ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1970), p. 27, write that each nation knew their territorial bounds but nothing required that land be divided up and parceled out under a system of land titles. Tribal leaders and the people themselves negotiated rights of occupation and use.

[270]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 90.

[271]White, Brief Relation, p. 41.

[272]L. B. [Lord Baltimore, George Calvert], in The Answer to the Judgment of a Divine upon the Letter of the lay Catholics to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon (1631), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 55, pp. 49-53, illustrates George Calvert's use of Aquinas as an authority.

[273]Andrew White, S.J. "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (February 20, 1639), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 207.

[274]Ibid., p. 208.

[275]Keith Luria, "The Counter-Reformation and Popular Spirituality" Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupré and Don Saliers (New York: Crossroad, 1989), p. 104. Aquinas repeated the ideas of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics about the supremacy of the individual over social ethics and the obliteration of the social elements articulated in the Gospel and in the practice of the first centuries of the church's life.

[276]Barry J. Gordon, Economic Analysis Before Adam Smith: Hesiod to Lessius (New York: Macmillan, 1975), p. 159; see also, Ernest Bartell, "Values, Price, and St. Thomas," The Thomist, 25 (1962), 354.

[277]Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super sententiis magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. Pierre Mandonnet and M. Moos (4 vols., Paris: 1949), bk. 4, d. 17, q. 1, art. 1, gla. 1.

[278]Part of the established order was the clerical hierarchy, which was among Europe's largest landlords and capitalists. It had an interest in not changing the system of wealth distribution. Typical of Aquinas's denial of the labor theory of value was his claim that, as he put it in Summa Theologiae: Latin Text and English Translation, Introduction, Notes, ed. Thomas Gilby, O.P. (60 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), vol. 37, p. 17, 2a 2ae, q. 57, art. 4, "What belongs to the slave is the masters."

[279]Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 34, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 32, art. 10, ad. 3; ibid., pt. 2a-2ae, q. 31, art. 3, ad 4; ibid., pt. 2a-2ae, q. 32, art. 9, and art. 10, ad. 1.

[280]Archbishop Salvian of Marseille, Quis Dives Salvus: How a Rich Man May be Saved Written to the Catholic Church in France About the Year 480 ([1618] 1973) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 170, pp. 275-276.

[281]Nicholas Caussin, The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity [1634, etc.] 1977), trans. Basil Brooke in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 3, p. 91. See also, Henry Hawkins, The History of St. Elizabeth (1632), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 198; Pierre Matthieu, The History of St. Elizabeth (1633), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 94.

[282]Domingo de Soto, Deliberación en la causa de los pobres (Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Politicos, 1965), pp. 117-118, 121.

[283]Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 47, p. 211, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 188, art. 7; 1a-2a, q. 4, art. 7; Richard Kaeuper, "Peasants' Rebellion" in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Strayer (New York: Scribner, 1969), vol. 9, p. 477.

[284]J. J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English People (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984), p. 51. Wilbur K. Jordan, The Charities of Rural England, 1480-1660 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961), pp. 22, 26, 94, 222, supports Arthur Hildersham's claim made in the 1630s that considerably more money was put into English hospitals, charities, colleges, and schools once the monasteries were confiscated. The monks had consumed a great amount of wealth.

[285]Ludo Milis, Angelic Monks and Earthly Men: Monasticism and Its Meaning to Medieval Society (Rochester, N.Y.: The Boydell Press, 1992).

[286]Vijay Prashad, "Mother Teresa: A Communist View," Political Affairs (New York: September 1997), vol. 76, no. 9, pp. 13-17.

[287]Fourth Assembly, "Act for Rating Artificers Wages" (October 30, 1640), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 97; 11th Assembly, "An Order Providing for the Smith" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, p. 255, which authorized the county court to "moderate the bills, wages, and rates of artificers, laborers, and surgeons."

[288]Fidel Castro, Fidel and Religion: Castro Talks on Revolution and Religion with Frei Belto (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), pp. 226-227.

[289]Leonard Swidler & Edward Grace, eds., Catholic-Communist Collaboration in Italy (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988), p. 87.

[290]Ibid., pp. 10-11.

[291]Ibid., pp. 163-165.

[292]Historian Terry Sullivan in The Roots of the Abortion: The Slaughter of Innocents in the American Empire (Denver, Colorado: Christian Radical Press, 2003, http://radicalchristian
press.org/default.aspx), studies the Catholic hierarchy’s similar complicity with abortion in the United States. He summarizes, ibid., p. 16,

The myth is that the Catholic Church is the bulwark of the Pro Life Movement. The fact is that Catholics are the bulwark of abortion. Catholic politicians lead the way in promoting contraception and protecting abortion, and they are routinely returned to office by Catholic voters. They shrug off the occasional formal and feeble demurrers of the bishops. They take such statements as seriously as they are meant to be taken. Rank and file Catholics in overwhelming numbers practice contraception and allow abortion. Catholic hospitals are complicit in abortion and contraception and Catholic bishops don't dare do anything about it, or even say anything about it, for the most part. That is even assuming that they wanted to, a very doubtful assumption in the light of the recent history of the Church. Catholic Hospitals--so-called Catholic Hospitals--cannot even deny staff privileges to abortionists, because of the federal money they receive through medicare and medicaid. Or so they tell us. They cannot discriminate. Conformity to the state because of the money is the epitaph for Christian morality.

[293]Giglia Tedesco, quoted in Swidler & Edward Grace, eds., Catholic-Communist Collaboration in Italy, pp. 83-84.

[294]Ibid.

[295]Ibid., pp. 83-84.

[296]Ibid., p. 10.

[297]Ibid., p. 59.

[298]German Guzman, Camilo Torres (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1969), pp. 291-292. The Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path) was another example of a people taking up arms over tokenism. Leaders such as Abimael "Gonzalo" Guzman Reynosa (b. 1934), Fr. Jean-Marie Mondet, and Nelly Evans, a former member of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who studied in Virginia in the 1960s, quoted scripture against tokenism, "You will know them by their works" (Mt. 7:16, 20) in defending the golden rule. See Simon Strong, Shining Path: Terror and Revolution in Peru (New York: Random House, 1992), p. 67.

[299]Guzman, Camilo Torres, pp. 291-292. See also Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 146, 247, which cites an earlier version of this present essay in tracing the influence of Torres on liberation theology.

[300]Ibid.

[301]Lorena Walsh, "Community Networks in the Early Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois Carr, (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), p. 235.

[302]Michael Graham, "Lord Baltimore's Pious Enterprise: Toleration and Community in Colonial Maryland," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1983, p. 92. The family-like relations that existed in early Maryland contrasted with the anti-family religion of the capitalists. Their theology, as voiced by Jesuit writers Luis de Molina (1535-1600) and Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623), taught the legitimacy of slavery, including that of parents selling their children into slavery. See Harro Höpfl, Jesuit Political Thought: The Society of Jesus and the State, c. 1540-1630 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 297.

[303]Thomas Weston (1574-1647), who started out as a London ironmonger and ended up living in Maryland in the 1640s, was the one who chartered the Mayflower for the Pilgrims in 1620 and later had supplied them with provisions and lived with them in Massachusetts. See Roland G. Usher, "Thomas Weston," Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribners, 1936), vol. 10, p. 20; Roland G. Usher, The Pilgrims and their History (New York: Macmillan, 1918).

[304]Anonymous, The Case of the Army Truly Stated, in A. L. Morton, Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974), p. 41.

[305]F. G. Emmison, Early Essex Town Meetings (London: Phillimore, 1970), p. x.

[306]Margo Todd, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 167, 171, 254, 258; Paul Slack, "Poverty and Politics in Salisbury, 1597-1666," in Crisis and Order in English Towns: Essays in Urban History, ed. Peter Clark (Toronto: 1972), p. 188; Valerie Pearl, "Puritans and Poor Relief: The London Workhouse, 1649-1660," in Puritans and Revolutionaries, ed. Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (Oxford: 1978), pp. 214-215. Leveler William Goffe, How to Advance the Trade of the Nation and Employ the Poor, in Harleian Miscellany: or, a Collection of Pamphlets (London: White Murray, and Harding, 1813), vol. 12, pp. 250-252, defended the right to a job through government created workhouses. He urged that if only two persons got free goods in 9,725 parishes at 3d per day, it would be a daily loss of £243 which could be saved by workhouses.

[307]In London Parliament established the London Corporation of the Poor in 1647 and made it a model for the country in providing employment for working people. Also at the national level unemployment was alleviated by subsidization of manufacturing and agricultural projects and the establishment of high import duties that made the import of foreign manufactured goods into England difficult. One of the complaints in the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 had been about the decline of the cloth-making trade because the government of Holland was more aggressive in promoting the trade there. See "Grand Remonstrance," in Henry Gee (ed), Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1921), p. 558, paragraph 55; A. L. Beier, "Poor Relief in Warwickshire, 1630-1660, Past and Present, no. 35 (1966), 78; P. Rushton, "The poor Laws, the Parish, and the Community in North-East England, 1600-1800," Northern History, 25 (1989), 151.

[308]Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters in England under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 5.

[309]Thomas White, quoted in Southgate, "The Life and Work of Thomas White, 1598-1676," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1980, p. 43.

[310]James Connolly, Selected Writings, ed. P. Bernesford Ellis (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973), p. 41).

[311]Francis Moloney, A Life of Promise: Poverty, Chastity, Obedience (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985), p. 68, comments:

St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) was proud to earn his living, and he ordered his followers to continue working at the trades which they had practiced before they had joined him. It is also important to know that he permitted his followers to beg only when there was no work, or when the salary was not enough to live on (Regula primitiva [Primitive Rule, 1209], 7; Testament [1226], 19-22). The practice where Religious are most clearly seen in action is at their work. As this is the case it is within the sphere of each particular apostolic activity that they must raise serious questions, and not just “do a job”.

[312]Moloney, A Life of Promise: Poverty, Chastity, Obedience (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985), p. 70.

[313]Aquinas, Questiones quodlibetales, quodlibet, q. 6, art. 10; see also, Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 38, pp. 225-231, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 77, art. 4.

[314]John Baldwin, The Medieval Theories of Just Price: Romanists, Canonists, and Theologians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1959), pp. 27-29.

[315]Gordon, Economic Analysis Before Adam Smith, p. 178.

[316]Thomas White, The Grounds of Obedience and Government: Being the Best Account to All that has been Lately Written in Defense of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance (Farnborough, England: Gregg International Publishers, [1649, 1655, 1659, 1685], 1968), p. 70. White was the intellectual leader of the 450 secular clergy during the Civil War period. Robert Bradley, S.J. in "Blacklo and the Counter-Reformation: An Inquiry into the Strange Death of Catholic England," From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly, ed. Charles Carter (New York: Random House, 1965), pp. 349-350, stated, "Few English Catholics of that century had such an impact on their contemporaries as Thomas White had." Likewise, Catholic priest George Leyburn remarked at the time on the "zeal" which Catholics had for White, his "wonderful influence," and his being looked to as an "oracle." See George Leyburn, "A List of the More Noteworthy Priests who are to be Found at Present among the English Secular Clergy," in The Douay College Diaries, 1598-1654, ed. Edwin Burton (London: Catholic Record Society, 1911), vol. 11, pp. 547-548, 550.

[317]Thomas White, Blacklo's Cabal Discovered in Several of their Letters, ed. Robert Pugh (1610-1679), re-edited, T. A. Birrell (Farnborough, England: Gregg International Publishers, [1680], 1970), p. 3.

[318]Roger Coke, Justice Vindicated from the False Fusus put upon it by Thomas White (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1660), section 2, p. 53.

[319]Christopher Haigh, "The Recent Historiography of the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 25.

[320]Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 38, pt. 2a-2ae, q. 78.

[321]Zygmunt Przetakiewicz, "Oruch w obronie cywilizacji ludzkiej," Slowo Powszechene (July 22, 1954), p. 1.

[322]Randle Holme, Academy of Armory, 1688, or, A Storehouse of Armory and Blazon (Menston, Scolar Press, [1688], 1972).

[323]Thomas Hughes, S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), text, vol. 1, p. 419. Gertrude Huehns, Antinomianism in English History with special Reference to the Period, 1640-1660 (London: Cresset Press, 1951), p. 5, commented about 17th-century antinomianism, "It is to some extent independent of its precise doctrinal meaning. In short there seems to be an antinomian 'attitude' to general issues just as there is a Puritan attitude to them." Charles Adams in Episodes of Massachusetts History (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1903), pp. 366-367, wrote that the antinomian controversy in 17th-century Massachusetts could not be properly appreciated if it was approached from a theological point of view.

[324]John Jubbes, An Apology . . .touching a proceeding in a paper called Proposals for Peace and Freedom, offered from many worthy citizens unto Commissioner General Ireton, for the concurrence of the army, after the prohibition of things of that nature (London: 1649). Jon Butler in "Thomas Teackle's 333 Books: A great Library on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1697" William and Mary Quarterly, 49 (July 1992), p. 449-491, lists among the revolutionary writers whose pamphlets made their way to the 17th-century Chesapeake: William Pryne, John Playfere and Richard Baxter.

[325]Gerrard Winstanley, "Fire in the Bush," The Works of Gerrard Winstanley, ed. George Sabine (New York: Cornell University Press, 1941), p. 451-455; Butler, "Thomas Teackle's 333 Books," p. 491.

[326]R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (London: 1912).

[327]John Lewger and Jerome Hawley, A Relation of Maryland (1635), in Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), p. 96.

[328]From 1642 to 1648 the offer was 50 acres. Additional tracts were offered for a spouse or child. Single women were offered headrights, that is "free land," equal to those of men. In Virginia the headright was 50 acres, so that between 1633 and 1641, and after 1649, a Maryland worker was offered twice as much acreage as a Virginia worker.

[329]"William Eltonhead Estate Inventory" (July 1658), Archives of Maryland (William H. Browne, ed., 72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 41, p. 103; Susan Gerard, "Court Proceedings" (November 8, 1658), ibid., vol. 41, pp. 143-144. The quit rent, which amounted to 1% of a farmer's gross income or about 1s for 50 acres, was the same in Virginia as in Maryland. This was cheaper than in England, where annual rents averaged about 30% of the tenants gross income or between 5s to 8s per acre and £1 per acre. See Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (August 8, 1636), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 47-48.

[330]Russell Menard, Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland (New York: Garland Pub., [1975], 1985), p. 61.

[331]Ibid., p. 61. Five percent of the population in the early 1640s, that is six Catholics and six Protestants were landlords, composing the closest thing Maryland had to a gentry class. See Garry Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger's St. John's," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1982, p. 42; "Tax List" (August 1, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 142-146; "Tax List" (November 1, 1642), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 120-126

[332]Henry Newman, The Flowering of the Maryland Palatinate (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company [1961], 1984), p. 214. A barrel of corn was worth between £1½ and £3.

[333]Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 3, 1639), in "Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore, Md.: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28, p. 159.

[334]"Thomas Gerard," in St. Mary's City Commission, "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," manuscript, Annapolis: Hall of Records), box 10.

[335]Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Lord Baltimore" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 159.

[336]Illustrative of more recent landless farmers who seized land were the Peruvian Indians in the state of Ayacucho. They expelled the police from their villages and established liberated areas. See Simon Strong, Shining Path: Terror and Revolution in Peru (New York: Random House, 1992), p. 22.

[337]Richard Morris, Studies in the History of American Law with Special Reference to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), p. 72.

[338]"Johnson versus Land," (1650) in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 542.

[339]"The Bill for Confirmation of his Lordship's Patent" (August 12, 1641), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 107, "Third Conditions of Plantation" (August 1648), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 99-101; Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (October 8, 1641).

[340]Ibid., vol. 4, p. 100; "An Act for the Confirmation of the Lord's Patent" (January 25, 1648), ibid., vol. 1, p. 218.

[341]Matthew Andrews, Tercentenary History of Maryland (Baltimore: S. J. Clarke Pub. Co., 1925), vol. 1, p. 189; Cecil Calvert, "Letter to Assembly" (August 26, 1649), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 267; "Oath of Fealty to the Lord Proprietor" (June 20, 1648), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 196-197.

[342]Eleventh Assembly, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, p. 242.

[343]John Smith, A Description of New England (London: H. Lownes, 1616), pp. 195-196.

[344]William Hilton as quoted in Alexander Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers of the Colony of Plymouth, 1602-1625 (Boston: C. C. Little and Brown, 1841), p. 250. Robert Cushman, ibid., pp. 248-249, contrasted the economic opportunities in America with those in England. While America rewarded labor, England "groans under so many closefisted and unmerciful men, that colonization only could correct the straitness of the land. While the rent-takers in England lives on sweet morsels, the rent-payer eats a dry crust often with watery eyes."

[345]Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," p. 115. See also, ibid., pp. 116, 169; Manfred Jonas, "Wages in Early Colonial Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 51 (1956), 27-28. Wages ranged from about 20 pounds of tobacco per day to 300 pounds per month.

[346]"Audrey Daly," "Career Files," box 29; "Elizabeth Willan," "Career Files," box 31; Julia Spruill, Women's Life and Work in the Southern Colonies (New York: Norton, [1938] 1972), p. 241. Laurita Gibson, Catholic Women of Colonial Maryland," unpublished M.A. thesis, Catholic University of America, 1939, p. 32.

[347]Gloria Main, Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), p 121.

[348]Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," pp. 169, 181.

[349]Ronald Meek, Studies in the Labor Theory of Value (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1973), pp. 240, 285, 289. Among the capitalist classics on the iron law of wages were Aristotle's Economics, Xenephon's Economist, and Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts.

[350]Andrew Appleby, Famine in Stuart and Tudor England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978); Earle, "Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia," pp. 108-111, 116.

[351]William Petty, Political Anatomy of Ireland in Charles Hull, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty (New York: A. M. Kelley, [1898], 1964), vol. 1, p. 151. Concerning market-driven nutritional deprivation in Quito during the 1640s, see Nicholas Cushner, S.J., Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767 (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982), pp. 35, 131. Joseph Smith (ed.), Colonial Justice in Western Massachusetts, 1639-1702: The Pychon Court Record (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 14, discusses the New England corn shortage and famine scare in 1638. Not enough corn was planted in 1637.

[352]John Munroe, Colonial Delaware: A History (Millwood, New York: KTO Press, 1978), pp. 24-25. In West-Central Africa the capitalist system of consumer debt and foreclosure forced laboring people not only to neglect their own needs but to sell themselves and their children into slavery. See Joseph Miller, Way of Death: Merchant Capitalism and the Angolan Slave Trade, 1730-1830 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).

[353]Jose Porfirio Miranda, Communism in the Bible (trans. Robert Barr, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1982), p. 73.

[354]Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland," p. 133.

[355]John McCusker and Russell Menard, The Economy of British America: 1607-1785 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), p. 65.

[356]Second Assembly, "A Bill for Planting Corn" (March 15, 1638), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 20.

[357]Copley, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 164.

[358]Second Assembly, "A Bill for Corn Measures" (March 14, 1638), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 16; 4th Assembly, "An Act Prohibiting the Exportation of Corn" (October 1640), ibid., vol. 1, p. 96.

[359]Copley, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 164.

[360]Sixth Assembly, "Act Limiting the Exportation of Corn" (July 30, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 161; 10th Assembly, "Proceedings" (January 24, 1648), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 217-218.

[361]Tenth Assembly, "Proceedings" (January 24, 1648), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 217-218. Similar anti-hoarding measures were characteristic of Lancashire county, where the Catholic population was relatively heavy. The constables there were ordered to search all "houses, barns, and men holding corn more than for necessary support of themselves and their families." Those with excess were obliged to bring the corn to market by installment and sell it "at reasonable rates to the poor people." See John Walter, "Dearth and Social Order in Early Modern England," Past and Present, vol. 71 (1976), pp. 24, 27, 39.

[362]Third Assembly, "Proposed Act Determining Enormous Offenses" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 74. According to a parliamentary Act of 1552, which reproduced earlier acts and local regulations, an engrosser was one who obtained possession of grain or other food by buying or contracting for them before harvest, with the intention of selling again. A regrator was a person who bought provisions in a fair or market and resold any part of them in any fair or market within a distance of four miles. A forestaller was one who bought or caused to be bought any merchandise or food-stuffs or any other thing coming by land or water or contracted for or in any way enhanced the price of such commodities. See Donald Barnes, A History of the English Corn Laws (London: A. M. Kelly, [1930], 1961), p. 2.

[363]Leonard Calvert, "Commission to Sheriff to Enforce the Forestalling Act" (October 12, 1640), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 91.

[364]Third Assembly, "Act Ordaining Certain Laws for the Government of this Province" (March 19, 1639), ibid., vol. 1, p. 84.

[365]Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," pp. 45, 131.

[366]Adam Piekarski, The Church in Poland: Facts, Figures, Information (Warsaw: Interpress, 1978), p. 157; Boleslaw Piasecki, "Poglebianie argumentow," Dzis i Jutro, no. 48 (December 2, 1951), p. 1; Vincent C. Chrypinski, "The Movement of Progressive Catholics in Poland," Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1958)," p. 134. Poland's revolutionary clergy, led by Fr. Antoni Lemparty, identified with the Soviets and after World War II turned the pulpit into support for a strong industrial economy: this meant the collectivization of agriculture, the national austerity of the 3 and 6 year plans, and the struggle against the consumerism fetish of the capitalist system. The country's industrial growth rate of 11% per year soon made it the world's 10th leading producer of industrial goods.

[367]Chrypinski, "The Movement," p. 78. Some of the internationalist priests during the 1950s volunteered their services along with medical workers, engineers and technicians in Vietnam and Africa to assist in the fight against French and U.S. imperialism. See Lucjan Blit, The Eastern Pretender, Boleslaw Piasecki: His Life and Times (London: Hutchinson, 1965), p. 169.

[368]The Patriotic Priests denounced Nikita Khrushchev and his ally Wladyslaw Gomulka, who took power in 1957. To trade with the capitalists, Gomulka borrowed heavily. Between 1957 and 1962, Poland took $407 million from the U.S. at he same time it ran a deficit of $310 million/year. By 1980 40% of Poland's trade was with capitalist countries. This trade resulted in a negative balance of payments. After 1956 rural class struggle was brought to a halt and the 10,000 farms that had been collectivized, were privatized. Because capitalist farming was not viable, the government subsidized it. This resulted in hoarding, speculation, erratic food supplies, a black market and the diversion of grain and potatoes for the distillation of illegal spirits. By the 1970s the nation was spending 40% of its annual budget to import grain. See Richard Staar, Poland: 1944-1962, The Sovietization of a Captive People (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1962), p. 117.

[369]Charles I, "Instructions to William Berkeley, 1642," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 2 (1894-1895), p. 287, no. 28; John Bozman, The History of Maryland (Spartenburg, S.C.: Reprint Co., [1837], 1968), vol. 2, p. 53.

[370]Fourth Assembly, "Act Touching Tobacco" (October 1640), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 97; 4th Assembly, "Oath of a Viewer" (October 1640), ibid., vol. 1, p. 98.

[371]Third Assembly, "Proposed Act Detailing Enormous Offenses" (March 19, 1639), ibid., vol. 1, p. 73, which dealt with weights and measures; 4th Assembly, "Act for Measures" (August 12, 1641), ibid., vol. 1, p. 108.

[372]Vertrees Wyckoff, Tobacco Regulation in Colonial Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Studies, 1936), pp. 68, 73-74, 80.

[373]John Krugler, "The Calvert Family, Catholicism, and Court Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England," The Historian, 43 (1981), 391.

[374]Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges and Figges, 1923), vol. 1, p. 373.

[375]Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 368-369; John Rushworth, Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: 1618-1648 (8 vols., London: D. Browne, 1772), vol. 8, pp. 411-412.

[376]O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1, p. 374.

[377]Ibid., vol. 1, p. 372; Rushworth, Historical Collections, vol. 8, p. 651.

[378]O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1, p. 369.

[379]Wyckoff, Tobacco Regulation in Colonial Maryland, pp. 90-91.

[380]Andrew White, S.J., A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634) in Hall, Narratives, p. 42, and in Andrew White, S.J., A Relation of Maryland (1635) in Hall, Narratives, pp. 71-77; Frederick Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds: Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and Their Development in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," in Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois Carr (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), p. 79. The pelt trade was similarly valued in William Pychon's Springfield, Massachusetts and in early Quebec.

[381]Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 161; Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 394.

[382]Thomas Cornwallis, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 16, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 173. The priest, Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 3, 1638), ibid., p. 161, complained against the attempted monopoly, that if Calvert could "but have the [Indian] trade of beaver and corn to yourself, the plantation is not much to be regarded."

[383]Edgar Johnson, American Economic Thought in the Seventeenth-Century (London: Russell and Russel, 1932), p. 148.

[384]In 1642, the first year for which tax lists have been preserved, the percentage of indentured workers had declined. There were 53 indentured workers, which was 20% of the 265 adult male European population then in the province. See 6th Assembly, "Tax Lists" (August 1, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 142-146; "Tax Lists" (November 1, 1642), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 120-126. Some 20% of the women rebelled by becoming pregnant outside of marriage, against the wishes of their employers. An employer obtained less work from a woman who had to put time into child raising. See "Court and Testamentary Business" (July 16, 1654), ibid., vol. 10, p. 396.

[385]Seventh Assembly, "Proceedings" (September 13, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 180.

[386]Eugene J. McCormac, White Servitude in Maryland, 1634-1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1904), p. 48. See also, Wesley Craven, The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: 1607-1689 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949), vol. 1, p. 215.

[387]Cecil Calvert, "Letter to Governor at New Amsterdam" (May 1, 1643), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 203, complained that 3 Irish servants, Brian Kelly, Cornelius O'Sulivant, and Balthasar Codd, took refuge with the Dutch. Carl Everstine, The General Assembly of Maryland, 1634-1776 (Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1980), p. 70, mentions that workers carrying off the goods of their employers was serious enough that the 5th assembly acted as a trial court in one case.

[388]"Thomas Allen," "Career Files," box 1.

[389]Abbott Smith, "The indentured Servant and Land Speculation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," American Historical Review, 40 (1934-1935), 467-472.

[390]Menard, Economy and Society, p. 247.

[391]Richard Dunn, "Masters, Servants, and Slaves in the Colonial Chesapeake and the Caribbean," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), p. 248; Ann Kussmaul, Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England (Cambridge: University Press, 1981), p. 35, find that worker theft of grain was a common form of resistance in Europe.

[392]Timothy Nourse, Compania Felix, or a Discourse on the Benefits and Improvements of Husbandry (London: T. Bennet, 1700), p. 200.

[393]Dunn, "Masters, Servants, and Slaves," p. 247; see also, Warren Billings (ed.), The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606-1689 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), p. 131.

[394]T. H. Breen, Tobacco Culture: The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. xiii.

[395]Peter Moogk, "Reluctant Exiles: Emigrants from France in Canada before 1760," William and Mary Quarterly, 46 (1989), 478.

[396]Warren B. Smith, White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1961), p. 58.

[397]"Thomas Gerard," "Career Files;" Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 2, p. 25.

[398]"Deposition of John Greenway" (February 14, 1650), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 524.

[399]Stephen Salmon, "Suit against Cuthbert Fenwick" (December 22, 1647), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 362; Giles Brent, "Suit against William Cox" (June 23, 1648), ibid., vol. 4, p. 395.

[400]Giles Brent, "Suit against William Cox" (June 23, 1648), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 395; Beitzell, Jesuit Missions, p. 22.

[401]Carville Earle, "Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth-Century, ed. Thad Tate and David Ammerman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 108-111, 116.

[402]John Hammond, Leah and Rachel, or, The Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland (1656) in Peter Force (comp.), Historical Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, [1838], 1963), no. 14, p. 292; Kussmaul, Servants in Husbandry, pp. 25, 39, notes the similar practices in England.

[403]Third Assembly, "An Act Limiting the Time of Service" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 80, required that in default of a contract, a worker had to be supplied with 3 barrels of corn, a hilling hoe, weeding hoe, falling ax, new cloth suit, a new monmouth cap, and a maid worker one new petticoat, and one pair of new stockings.

[404]Third Assembly, "Proposed Act for the Authority of Justice of the Peace" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p 53; 11th Assembly, "An Act Concerning Religion" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 245-246; "Court Proceedings" (June 19, 1638), ibid., vol. 4, pp. 35-39.

[405]Third Assembly, "An Act Ordering Certain Laws for the Government of this Province" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 83; 3rd Assembly, "Proposed Act for Military Discipline," (March 19, 1639), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 77-78; 11th Assembly, "An Act for Militia" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 254-255.

[406]See Lex Heerma van Voss and Marcel van der Linden (eds.), Class and Other Identities: Gender, Religion and Ethnicity in the Writing of European Labor History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2002), p. 236, who quote the 1996 edition of this present work in their similar study of European labor history.

[407]Third Assembly, "Proposed Act Limiting the Time of Service" (March 19, 1639), ibid., vol. 1, p. 80; 4th Assembly, "An Act Touching Servants Clothes" (October 30, 1640), ibid., vol. 1, p. 97; 14th Assembly, "An Act for all Servants coming into the Province with Indentures" (October 20, 1654), ibid., vol. 1, p. 352; Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (August 8, 1636), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 47-48; Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (November 10, 1641), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 99-100; Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (August 20, 1648), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 223-229; Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation" (July 2, 1649), ibid., vol. 3, pp. 233-237. See also, Andrew White, S.J., An Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore (1633) in Hall, Narratives, p. 6; John Lewger and Jerome Hawley, A Relation of Maryland (1635), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 91-92, 95-96.

[408]"Indenture of Mary Harris" (August 8, 1648), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 10, p. 305-306.

[409]According to estimates as to expenses and income from keeping contract workers by Garry Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," p. 110, the landlords may have lost as much as £4 per year on each worker during the period.

[410]Menard, Economy and Society, p. 61; Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," p. 42.

[411]Russell Menard, "Maryland's Time of Troubles: Sources of Political Disorder in Early Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 76 (1981), 134.

[412]"Career Files" sorted on religion, arrival status, and land ownership.

[413]Walter Montagu in Miscellanea Spiritualia: or, Devout Essays, the Second Part (London: John Crook, 1654), vol. 2, pp. 70, 73, 161, maintained that otherworldly contempt for the present life was a virtue. Robert Persons, S.J. in The Christian Directory: Guiding Men to Eternal Salvation, Commonly called the Resolution ([1582, etc.] 1970), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 41, pp. 510-511, offered a litany about the world's unredeemable nature:

This world is so vain, so deceitful, so troublesome, so dangerous; being it is a professed enemy to Christ, excommunicated and damned to the pit of hell; being it is (as one father said) an ark of travail, seeing it is a grove full of thorns, a meadow full of scorpions, a flourishing garden without fruit, a cave full of poisoned and deadly basiliskes; seeing (as Saint Augustine said) the joy of this world has nothing else but false delight, travailsome labor, seeing it has nothing in it (as St. Chrysostome said) but tears, shame, labors, terrors, sickness, sin, and death itself; seeing the world's repose is full anguish, its travails without fruit.

[414]A. L. Morton, "Introduction," Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974), p. 23.

[415]Quoted in ibid., p. 27.

[416]Ibid.

[417]Moloney, A Life of Promise: Poverty, Chastity, Obedience, p. 161.

[418]Mercurius Rusticus (Royalist Newspaper), reproduced in Maurice Ashley, The English Civil War (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974), p. 154.

[419]Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714 (Edinburgh: T. Nelson, 1961), p. 32. The gentry in England raked over national (Crown) resources through the sale of political offices and the granting of manufacturing and trading patents on commodities such as butter, herring, salt, beer, soap, coal and alum. Nicholas Crispe, the Catholic son of a London alderman, headed the Guinea Company, which had a licensed monopoly on the gold, redwood, and slave trade with Guinea. Over a several year period he gained £140,000 for himself and his partners, who included the Catholics Anthony Bugges, Kenelm Digby, and William Herbert. See Frederick Crispe, Collections Relating to the Family of Crispe (2 vols. London: n.p., 1882), vol. 1, pp. 13, 32, 34; J. W. Blake, "The Farm of the Guinea Trade in 1631," Essays in British and Irish History in Honor of James E. Todd, eds. Henry A. Cronne and D. B. Quinn (London: F. Muller, 1949), pp. 86-106.

[420]Cecil Calvert, "Letter" (August 21, 1639), Archives of Maryland (William H. Browne, ed., 72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, p. 31.

[421]Of the thirteen documented Catholics in the assembly, only two voted for the code. Both served under Calvert's patronage: the nominal governor and the provincial secretary. Neither were elected officials. See Leonard Calvert, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 25, 1638), in Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), p. 156. The 1638, 1642, and 1648 assemblies were literally town meetings. See Seventh Assembly, "Proceedings" (September 5, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 170; John L. Bozman, The History of Maryland (Spartenberg: Reprint Co., [1837], 1968), vol. 2, pp. 317, 322; Russell Menard, Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland (New York: Garland Pub., [1975], 1985), p. 313.

[422]Keith Thomas, "Women and the Civil War Sects," Past and Present, 13 (1958), 46-47, describes the participation of women in local government including debating, voting, and preaching during the Civil War. See also, Frederick Emmison, Early Essex Town Meetings of Braintree [England], 1619-1636 (Chichester, England: Philmore Press, 1970), p. xi; Mary Dunn, "Saints and Sisters: Congregational and Quaker Women in the Early Colonial Period," American Quarterly, 30 (1978), 585-586, 588-589.

[423]George Fox, The Women Learning in Silence (London: Thomas Simonds, 1656), p. 1. See also, George Fox, A Collection of Many Select and Christian Epistles, (London: T. Sowle, 1698), vol. 2, p. 323. Fox believed men and women were supposed to help each other. Men were not to rule over women.

[424]"Proceedings" (March 1, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 36.

[425]"Assembly Proceedings" (October 12-24, 1640), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 94-95. Usually only the governor and secretary voted for the bills.

[426]Ibid., pp. 93, 95, 97.

[427]"Bill for Confirmation of his Lordship's Patent" (August 12, 1641), ibid., vol. 1, p. 107.

[428]Eleventh Assembly, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, p. 243.

[429]Matthew Andrews, Tercentenary History of Maryland (Baltimore: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1925), vol. 1, p. 195.

[430]Cecil Calvert, "Commission of William Stone" (August 6, 1648), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, p. 203.

[431]William Hakewill, The Manner of Holding Parliaments in England (London: n.p., 1641).

[432]"An Act Ordering Certain Laws for the Government of this Province" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 84.

[433]"Assembly Proceedings" (March 21, 1642), ibid., vol. 1, p. 117.

[434]"Assembly Proceedings" (July 17, 1642), ibid., vol. 1, p. 130.

[435]Susan Falb, Advice and Ascent: The Development of the Maryland Assembly, 1635-1689 (New York: Garland Publishers, 1986), p. 57.

[436]Bozman, The History of Maryland, vol. 2, p. 295.

[437]Cuthbert Fenwick, "Deposition" (October 20, 1646), in Edwin Beitzell (ed), "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff versus Richard Ingle, Defendant: Testimony of John Lewger and Cuthbert Fenwick, 1645-1646," in Chronicles of St. Marys (Leonardtown, Md.), 26 (no. 2, February 1978), p. 353, answer no. 23; Cecil Calvert, "Form of Appointment of Collector of Customs under Charles I," in Anonymous, Virginia and Maryland, or the Lord Baltimore's Case Uncased and Answered (1655), in Peter Force (comp.), Historical Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, [1838], 1963), vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 43-45. Ibid., p. 11.

[438]Charles I, quoted in Henry Thompson, "Richard Ingle in Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 1 (1906), 129-130.

[439]Calvert was to get a percentage from each prize. The king had given freedom of trade to merchants in Bristol in violation of the monopolies held by the Merchant Adventurers and other London companies. See J. P. Cooper, "Social and Economic Policies under the Commonwealth," The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660, ed. G. E. Aylmer (London: Macmillan, 1972), p. 132.

[440]Thomas Copley, S.J., "Libel of Thomas Copley against the Reformation," Public Record Office, Admiralty Court Libels, 167, no. 205, in Thompson, "Richard Ingle in Maryland," p. 136, see also, pp. 129-130.

[441]Matthew Andrews, Tercentenary History of Maryland (Baltimore: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1925), vol. 1, p. 179. Calvert also sought help from those in Massachusetts who were dissatisfied with the antinomian policy there. In October 1643 he asked Samuel Gorton (1592-1677), Captain Edward Gibbons, and those under their influence, to migrate to Maryland. Gorton was in trouble with the Massachusetts government for having had the Narragansett Indians with whom he was in contact make a pledge of loyalty to Charles I. He had been arrested in 1642 and was eventually banished. See Samuel Gorton, Simplicities: Defense Against the Seven-Headed Policy, or Innocency vindicated: being unjustly accused, and sorely censured, by the Seven-headed church-government united in New-England; or that servant so imperious. . ., (London: J. Macock, 1646), in Force, Tracts, vol. 4.

[442]John Lewger, "Deposition" (September 26, 1645) in Beitzell, "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff," p. 349, answer no. 14; p. 350, answer no. 18.

[443]The three Catholics were the secretary, John Lewger, Thomas Copley, S.J., and the small farmer, Nicholas Causin. See Thompson, "Richard Ingle in Maryland," pp. 131-133.

[444]Steven Crow, "Left at Libertie: The Effects of the English Civil War and Interregnum on the American Colonies, 1640-1660," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1974, p. 93.

[445]Edward Papenfuse (ed.), A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), pp. 19, 111; Cuthbert Fenwick, "Deposition" (April 18, 1654), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 10, p. 372. Three of the Catholics who supported the overthrow demanded specific assurances of no retaliation when the proprietor's governor appeared with a band of Virginia mercenaries in December 1646 to reclaim his position.

[446]Will Lewis, John Jarboe, Robert Sharpe, John Salter, Will Clare, Thomas Kingwell, "Deposition" (December 29, 1646), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 209-210, 220.

[447]Lewger, "Deposition" (September 26, 1645), in Beitzell, "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff," p. 350, answer 18.

[448]Cuthbert Fenwick, "Testimony" (April 18, 1654), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 10, p. 372. Cornwallis's debtors, including Francis Gray, also helped with the leveling. See "Cuthbert Fenwick," in St. Mary's City Commission, "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," manuscript, Annapolis: Hall of Records).

[449]Henry Thompson, "Richard Ingle in Maryland," p. 13.

[450]"Thomas Gerard," "Career Files;" Giles Brent, "Libel of Thomas Copley," in Thompson, "Richard Ingle in Maryland," pp. 134, 136. Despite the leveling, Gerard stayed on in Maryland with no indication he supported the Crown. That religious bias was not a controlling factor in the levelings is seen from the several Protestant landlords who were leveled and from the Catholic landlords, such as Thomas Greene, who were not touched. See Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," p. 205.

[451]Papenfuse (ed.), A Biographical Dictionary, pp. 17, 20.

[452]According to Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture," p. 490, per capita tobacco production rose in 1646 to 950 pounds. It had been 878 in 1639. Fewer people abandoned the province during the leveling period than either before or after, and when they did, it was not Catholics who left. See "Career Files."

[453]In Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 266.

[454]Eleventh Assembly, "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 21, 1649), ibid., vol. 1, p. 238.

[455]Several London ships were also sent home without a cargo in 1644 by Virginia for having attacked royalist Bristol ships. See Wesley Craven, The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (4 vols., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949), p. 239.

[456]Portland Manuscripts, vol. 3, p. 68, as cited in Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges and Figges, 1923), vol. 1, pp. 368-370.

[457]Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), p. 196.

[458]Cecil Calvert, "Declaration to the Lords" (1636), in "Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore, Md.: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28, p. 223.

[459]Charles I, "Instructions to William Berkeley, 1642," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 2 (1894-1895), 288, no. 31, has the 1642 prohibitions.

[460]Bozman, History of Maryland, vol. 2, p. 302.

[461]J. E. Farnell, "The Navigation Act of 1651, the First Dutch War, and the London Merchant Community," Economic History Review, 16 (1964), 443, 454.

[462]Robert Brenner, "Commercial Change and Political Conflict," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1970, p. 535.

[463]"Edward Packer," "Career Files."

[464]Violet Barbour, "Dutch and English Merchant Shipping in the Seventeenth Century," Economic History Review, 2 (1929-1930), 261-290. From its first years, Maryland traded with the Dutch and derived its main tax revenues from it. See Bozman, History of Maryland, vol. 2, pp. 204, 363; Third Assembly, "Act Ordaining Certain Laws for the Government of the Province" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 84 (provided a 5% custom on tobacco shipped outside the province except to England, Virginia, and Ireland).

[465]John Lewger, "Deposition" (September 26, 1645), in Beitzell, "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff," p. 349, answer no. 10.

[466]Thompson, "Richard Ingle in Maryland," pp. 131-133. During the overthrow, Ingle captured a Dutch ship anchored at St. Mary's and took it back to England as a prize.

[467]John Hammond, Leah and Rachel, or the Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland (1656), pp. 24-25, in Hall, Narratives, p. 304.

[468]Daniel Randall, A Puritan Colony in Maryland in John Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science, 6, (4th series, 1886), pp. 9, 20.

[469]Papenfuse, Dictionary, p. 422.

[470]Ibid., p. 21; Richard Bennett, "Reduction of Maryland" (March 29, 1652), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, p. 272.

[471]Crow, "Left at Libertie," pp. 160, 170; "Articles of Surrender" (March 12, 1652) and "Assembly Proceedings" (1653) in Virginia, General Assembly House of Burgesses, Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia (1619-1776), ed. H. R. McIlwaine (13 vols., Richmond: E. Waddy, 1915), vol. 1, pp. 79, 90-91, states the Dutch trade to Virginia was stopped after Bennett arrived in 1652.

[472]Nelson Rightmyer, Maryland's Established Church Baltimore: Diocese of Maryland, 1956), p. 8.

[473]Richard Bennett, "Commission for Governor of Maryland Under the Commonwealth" (August 8, 1654), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, pp. 311-313; 14th assembly, "An Act Concerning Religion" (October 20, 1654), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 340-341.

[474]James Perry, The Formation of a Society on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1615-1655 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), pp. 215-216. Similar political overthrows centering on trade went on during the 1650s in South America. Between 1645 and 1654 the Catholic Portuguese-Brazilian workers revolted against and expelled the Dutch West India Company, which had been founded in 1621. The Dutch had been dominant at the port of Recife and the capital at Perambuco in northeastern Brazil since the 1620s when the Catholics had joined the Dutch in expelling the Portuguese-Spanish regime. The Dutch were led by Johan Maurits, count of Nassau. By the 1640s the Catholic farmers were in revolt against the Dutch because they (the Catholics) resented the sharp trading practices and great debt that was owed the Dutch capitalists. See Lockhart, Early Latin America, p. 251.

[475]George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Abridged ed., Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., [1856-1874], 1966), pp. 355-356.

[476]The refusal to accept a charter from Parliament and the establishment of a mint in 1652 were symbolic of Massachusetts' similar beliefs about loyalty to British capitalism. Massachusetts long put off recognizing the Commonwealth and refused to issue writs in the name of the Keepers of Liberties of England. When in June 1654 Parliament sent a fleet to remove the Dutch from the coast of North America, and thus to interrupt trade, the Massachusetts general court refused to allow its citizens to be conscripted to join the fight. See Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, ed. Lawrence Mayo (2 vols., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936), vol. 1, pp. 149-150.

[477]Sections 7 and 19 of his charter attempted to give the proprietor the power to establish courts and name judges. See Bozman, History of Maryland, vol. 2, p. 127.

[478]Christopher Hill, "Interpretation of the English Interregnum," Economic History Review, 8 (May 1938), 160.

[479]"Charge of John Lewger against John Hampton, James Neale, Thomas Cornwallis, and Edward Parker" (February 8, 1644), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 245-247; "Charge of John Lewger against Richard Ingle" (February 8, 1644), ibid., vol. 4, p. 247.

[480]"Act for Certain Laws for the Government of the Province" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 83.

[481]Carl Everstine, The General Assembly of Maryland, 1634-1776 (Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1980), p. 70.

[482]Bozman, History of Maryland, vol. 2, pp. 145, 243, 284. Third Assembly, "Proposed Act for Fees" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 57-58.

[483]"Assembly Proceedings" (October 12-24, 1640), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 93-97.

[484]Some of the measures which were enacted included "Trial of causes" [passed by all except the governor]; "Warning juries" [passed by all except the governor]; "Ordinary court days" [passed by all except the governor]; "Choosing of sheriffs" [passed by all except the governor]; and "Sudden arrests" [passed by all]. See Everstine, General Assembly, p. 68; Third Assembly, "Proposed Act for Fees" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 57-58.

[485]Court Business (March 28, 1644), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 266.

[486]Tenth Assembly, "An Act for the Extent of Attachments and Executions" (March 4, 1648), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 232-233.

[487]Cecil Calvert, "Letter to Assembly" (August 26, 1649), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 268.

[488]"Charge of John Lewger against James Neale, et al" (February 8, 1643, January 21, 1644), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 232-233, 246.

[489]William Hardidge, "Court Testimony" (January 29, 1644) in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 233-234.

[490]"Court Proceedings" (February 1-5, 1644), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 237-245.

[491]John Lewger, "Deposition" (September 26, 1645), in Edwin Beitzell (ed), "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff versus Richard Ingle, Defendant: Testimony of John Lewger and Cuthbert Fenwick, 1645-1646," in Chronicles of St. Marys, 26 (no. 2, February 1978), 348, answer no. 3. Parliament acknowledged the loyalty of the Maryland Catholics later that year by the favorable treatment which it gave Thomas Cornwallis, a Maryland Catholic farmer. He asked Parliament to abolish the Calvert's charter.

[492]John Krugler, "Our Trusty and Well Beloved Councilor: The Parliamentary Career of Sir George Calvert, 1609-1624," Maryland Historical Magazine, 72 (1977), 486.

[493]Philip Massinger, The King and the Subject, later called The Bashful Lover, in Three New Plays: The Bashful Lover, etc. (London: Humphrey Moseley, 1655); see also, Adler, Philip Massinger, p. 115. Massinger's attack on ship money can be contrasted with the drama of the royalist Catholic, William Davenant, whose Britannia Triumphans (1638) defended ship money taxation. See William Lawes, Trois Masques a la cour-de Charles Ier d'Angleterre. . . Britannia triumphans (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la recherche, 1970); Parry, Golden Age Restored, p. 196; Kevin Sharp, Criticism and Compliment: the Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 247.

[494]The Grand Remonstrance of November 1641 complained that the Crown and custom officials were violating popular liberty by levying tonnage and poundage upon tobacco and other imports without the consent of Parliament. See Samuel Gardiner (ed.), The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625-1660 (3rd. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), p. 210.

[495]Vertrees Wyckoff, "The International Tobacco Trade in the Seventeenth Century," Southern Economic Journal, 7 (1940), pp. 16-17.

[496]Walter Montagu, Henrietta Maria, et al., A Copy of the Letter sent by the Queen Majesty Concerning the Collection of the Recusant Money for the Scottish War (London: n.p., [1639], 1640), pp. 7-10. According to Martin Havran, The Catholics in Caroline England, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1962), p. 155, see also, pp. 153, 156, the laboring Catholics in England generally refused to contribute to the collection. One account notes, "The Catholic gentry could not so easily elicit the support of the servants and poor sort of [English] Catholics in donating to the royal cause."

[497]O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1, p. 165.

[498]"Bill for an Expedition Against the Indians" (August 12, 1641), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 107.

[499]Frederick Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds, Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and their Development in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), pp. 78-79.

[500]"Assembly Proceedings" (March 22, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 118.

[501]"Assembly Proceedings" (July 17, 1642), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 130-131. The 7th assembly finally did authorize an expedition, but this was because the Susquehannock had raided Maryland a month earlier, not because there was a desire to assert the proprietor's claim of a pelt monopoly. See "Act for an Expedition Against the Indians" (September 13, 1642), ibid., vol. 1, p. 196-198.

[502]Edgar Johnson, American Economic Thought in the Seventeenth Century (London: Russell and Russell, 1932), p. 249.

[503]O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1, p. 166. The tax, like two other poll taxes in the prior 4 years, was sought to finance Richard II's (1377-1399) ambitions against Spain. The king was eventually overthrown and killed.

[504]Quoted in Jean Froissart, The Chronicles, trans. John Joeliffe (New York: Modern Library, 1967).

[505]Christopher Hill, The English Revolution: 1640 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1940), p. 51.

[506]Falb, Advice and Ascent, p. 200.

[507]Johnson, American Economic Thought, p. 250.

[508]Ibid., p. 249.

[509]Third Assembly, "Act Ordaining Certain Laws for the Government of the Province" (March 19, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 84, provided a 5% custom on tobacco shipped outside the province except to England, Virginia, and Ireland; 6th Assembly, "Act for Support of the Government" (July 30, 1642), ibid., vol. 1, pp. 146-147, required that all tobacco shipped out of the province, except to England, Virginia, and Ireland, had to pay a custom of 5%; 7th Assembly, "Act for the Support of the Government" (September 13, 1642), ibid., vol. 1, p. 182.

[510]See "Receipt for Henry Adams" October 15, 1651, in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 10, p. 376; "Receipt for Thomas Copley" December 23, 1651, ibid., vol. 10, p. 373.

[511]Cecil Calvert, "Letter to Assembly" (August 26, 1649), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 268.

[512]"Career Files," sorted on religion, cross-checked with Papenfuse, Dictionary.

[513]"Court Business" (June 19, 1647), fn Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 313-314.

[514]Bozman, History of Maryland, vol. 2, p. 325, discusses the "frivolous objection" which the assembly used to keep the Dutch tax from Calvert.

[515]Adrian van der Donck, The Representation of New Netherlands (New York: [1650], 1849), p. 40, quoted in Johnson, American Economic Thought, p. 149.

[516]Even among the gentry there were those who wished to reduce the hierarchy. An example was the Catholic Kenelm Digby, who served as an unofficial ambassador to France for Cromwell. Historian R. T. Petersson in Sir Kenelm Digby: The Ornament of England, 1603-1665 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1956), p. 185, describes Digby's "horizontal" views,

He was a believer in the idea of progress then sweeping across Europe, the new, disorganizing horizontal force that was gradually weakening and replacing the order of things called the `great chain of being.'

[517]Steven Crow, "Left at Libertie: The Effects of the English Civil War and Interregnum on the American Colonies, 1640-1660," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1974, p. 4.

[518]Morton, Freedom in Arms, p. 28.

[519]Ibid., p. 73.

[520]On the issue of viewing religious freedom from a class perspective, see Edward Terrar, "Was there a Separation between Church and State in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England and Colonial Maryland?" Journal of Church and State (1993), vol. 35, pp. 61-82. Among those who cite from and expand on the arguments in this article is Jonatas Machado, professor at the University of Coimbra, Portugal in his “Religious Liberty in America and Beyond: Celebrating the Legacy of Roger Williams on the 400^th Year of his Birth: Freedom of Religion, A View from Europe,” Roger Williams University Law Review (Spring 2005), vol. 10, p. 451. He discusses religious liberty in the New England colonies. Maura Jane Farrelly in “Papist Patriots: Catholic Identity and Revolutionary Ideology in Maryland,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 2002, pp. 126, 330, maintains that American Catholics were equal to or more militant than Protestants in the independence struggle with Britain in the 1770s. She quotes the 1996 edition of this essay in tracing this militancy to the religious freedom of seventeenth-century Civil War Maryland. See also Robert A. Harper in his “Encyclopedia article on the State of Maryland,” Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (New York, New York: Scholastic Library Publishing, Inc., 2003, http://go.grolier.com, which likewise cites the 1996 edition of this present study. Scott McDermott in Charles Carroll of Carrollton: Faithful Revolutionary (New York: Scepter, 2002), p. 263, uses the above cited Journal of Church and State article in discussing religious freedom during the American Revolution.

[521]John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1975), p. 232.

[522]Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the Jesuits" (1639), in Hall, Narratives, p. 124, stated that Fernando Poulton (John Brock, d. April 1641), was assigned to the Mattapany plantation. The waste of clerical resources in administration was also characteristic of the Latin American missions. See Nicholas Cushner, Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767 (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1982), pp. 11-16, 59, 134. The profit-making of missionaries was a big enough problem generally that Pope Urban VIII in 1633 issued legislation outlawing such activities. 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. See Urban VIII, litt. ap. "Ex Debito," (February 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.

[523]Andrew White, S.J., A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), in Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), pp. 40-41. George Bernard Shaw remarked that the missionaries wanted the natives to wear pants, so that the clergy could pick their pockets.

[524]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639, 1640), in Henry Foley, S.J., (ed.), Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., [1875], 1966), vol. 3, p. 372. Thomas Hughes, S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), text, vol. 2, p. 627, describes the Patuxent direct grant of a farm at Mattapany to the clergy. The Maryland assembly in "An Act Concerning Purchasing Land from the Indians" (April 21, 1649), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 248. The Calverts attempted to use Maryland's mortmain law to obtain land which the clergy had obtained directly from the Indians. See Michael Graham, "Lord Baltimore's Pious Enterprise: Toleration and Community in Colonial Maryland," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1983, p. 55.

[525]John Krugler, "`With Promise of Liberty in Religion:' The Catholic Lords Baltimore and Toleration in Seventeenth-Century Maryland, 1634-1642," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), p. 35.

[526]Edwin Beitzell, The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County Maryland (Abell, Md.: n.p., 1976), p. 16.

[527]Anthony Copley (1567-1607), Another Letter of Mr. A. C. to his Dis-Jesuited Kinsman (1602), in D. M. Rogers (ed.), English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 100, p. 14, see also, p. 64-65.

[528]Anthony Copley, An Answer to a Letter of a Jesuited Gentleman, by his Cousin, Mr. A. C. Concerning the Appeal, State, Jesuits (1601) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 31, p. 49.

[529]Robert Persons, A Temperate Ward-Word to the Turbulent and Seditious Watch-Word of Francis Hastinges (1601) in Rogers, English Recusant Literature.

[530]Copley, Another Letter. The crown in 1631 refused to license the Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger's play, Believe as You List because it attacked Hapsburg tyranny. See Doris Adler, Philip Massinger (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987), pp. 12, 86.

[531]Pope Clement VII had sided with France in the 25-year Hapsburg-Valois Wars (1521-1544), in which the French king, Francis I (1515-1547) fought Charles V over territories in Southern France, the Netherlands, the Rhineland, Northern Spain and Italy. In the second Hapsburg-Valois War (1527-1529), Clement took France's side because he feared losing church property and income to the Hapsburgs. In April 1527 the Hapsburgs sacked Rome and gained control over most of Italy. See Luigi Guicciardini, The Sack of Rome, trans. James McGregor (New York: Italica Press, 1993).

[532]A. G. Dickens, The Counter Reformation (Norwich, England: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1989), p. 94. About the history of the hierarchy's servility at the expense of the working class, Danuta Gostynska, the Polish revolutionary, in "Wokol Zagadnien Istotnych," Tygodnik Powszechny, no. 22 (May 22, 1958), p. 3, wrote:

The Catholic hierarchy took another important action, causing even greater resignation from the social mission, mainly the seeking of protection from civil authorities, which granted it in exchange for the hierarchy's blessings for the socio-political system they represented. Thus the hierarchy estranged itself first with feudalism and then capitalism. It became an ideology which disabled justified resistance and commanded passive waiting through temporalness for other-worldly happiness.

[533]Alfred Dennis, "Lord Baltimore's Struggle with the Jesuits, 1634-1649," Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1 (1900), p. 114.

[534]Henry Gee, Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1921), pp. 103-104.

[535]Robert Persons, S.J. "A Story of Domestic Difficulties," Miscellanea, ed. John H. Pollen, S.J. CRS, 2 (1906), 50. The defense against Norman imperialism included the execution of Thomas à Becket in 1170.

[536]E. Elliot Rose, Cases of Conscience: Alternatives Open to Recusants and Puritans under Elizabeth and James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 11. The 1571 Act, 13 Elizabeth 1, cap. 2, was directed against the bull, Regnans in Excelsis.

[537]Thomas Copley, S.J., "Letter to Lord Baltimore" (April 3, 1638), in "Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore, Md.: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28, p. 165. In the Maryland charter which Cecil Calvert's father had drawn up for approval by the crown in 1632, it was stated, "The church in Maryland is to be established according to the ecclesiastical laws of England." This included the praemunire law in the 1571 Act and the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, with the Book of Common Prayer as the norm for worship and the Thirty-Nine Articles as norms for doctrine. See Henry Commager (ed.), Documents of American History (7th ed., New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963), vol. 1, pp. 21-22; John Ellis (ed.), Documents of American Catholic History (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 95-98.

[538]Thomas White, The Middle State of Souls from the hour of death to the day of judgment (London: n.p., 1659), pp. 205-206. In addition to hell-mongering, the English Catholics complained about clergy who refused the sacraments to the dying unless they had left money in their will to particular causes. Traditionally, the clergy wrote many of the wills themselves. Purgatory bequests had in large measure been eradicated in England prior to the Reformation because of Catholic antinomianism. See Anthony Allison, "A Question of Jurisdiction, Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon and the Catholic Laity, 1625-1631," 7 Recusant History (1982-1983), p. 136; Henry Holden, A Letter to Mr. Graunt, Concerning Mr. White's treatise, "De Medio animarum statu" (Paris: n. p., 1661).

[539]Robert Bradley, S.J., "Blacklo and the Counter-Reformation: An Inquiry into the Strange Death of Catholic England," From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation: Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly, ed. Charles Carter (New York: Random House, 1965), pp. 349-350.

[540]Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 181.

[541]Carl Everstine, The General Assembly of Maryland, 1634-1776 (Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1980), p. 46.

[542]Edward Papenfuse (ed.), A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), p. 15; "Career Files"; Second Assembly, "Act for Swearing Allegiance to our Sovereign" (March 16, 1638), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, p. 20.

[543]William Shaw, A History of the English Church During the Civil Wars and Under the Commonwealth, 1640-1660 (2 vols.: New York: Longmans, Green, 1900), vol. 1, pp. 91, 120-121, 225-227 (Act of 16 Charles I, c. 11); vol. 2, p. 210. The Ordinance for Abolishing Bishops was enacted on October 9, 1646. The church courts were abolished in 1643.

[544]William Lyndwood, Lyndwood's `Provinciale': The Text of the Canons therein contained, reprinted from the Translation made in 1534 (London: Faith Press, 1929), pp. 34, 109.

[545]Henry Gee, "The Grand Remonstrance," "Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, 1921), p. 557, par. 51.

[546]Alexander Leighton, An Appeal to the Parliament, or Sions Plea Against the Prelacie (Holland: n.p., 1628), pp. 121, 263-264.

[547]John Milton, "A Reformation of England," The Prose Works of John Milton (5 vols., London: H. G. Bohn, 1881), vol. 2, pp. 402-404.

[548]Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, pp. 413, 419, 456; documents, vol. 1, no. 11, documents, vol. 1, pp. 158-161. The assembly provided that the provincial court follow common law, not canonical jurisprudence. This meant that the clergy were not given a priority over other creditors in debt cases. Illustrative of the clerical literature defending purgatory bequests was William Allen, also know as John Brereley, A Defense and Declaration of the Catholic Church's Doctrine Touching Purgatory (1565), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 18; and his A Treatise made in defense of the lawful power and authority of priesthood to remit sin (1567), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 99.

[549]John Bozman, The History of Maryland (Spartenburg, S.C.: Reprint Co., [1837], 1968), vol. 2, p. 92.

[550]Land was devised by will, which was administered in common law courts, while personalty was bequested in testaments, over which ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction. See Alison Reppy, Historical and Statutory Background of the Law of Wealth, Descent, and Distribution, Probate and Administration (Chicago: Callaghan and Co., 1928), pp. 4-5.

[551]Fourth Assembly, "Marriage Bill," Archives of Maryland (William H. Browne, ed., 72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1, p. 94.

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

[553]Ibid., p. 152.

[554]Gregorio M. deGuijo, Diario 1648-1664 (Mexico City: Editorial, 1952), 143; Luis Gonzalez Obregon, D. Guillen de Lampart, La Inquisicion y la Independencia en la Siglo XVII (Mexico City: Vda de C. Bouret, 1908). By the latter account Lampart fought in 1643 with an Irish regiment in Spanish service against the French forces in Flanders. In this account he was arrested by the Inquisition in 1652.

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

[556]Keith Thomas, "Women and the Civil War Sects," Past and Present, 13 (1958), 55.

[557]A Conoy, Mary Kittamaquand married Giles Brent. See Giles Brent, "Career Files." In the post-Civil War period interracial marriages were not outlawed, but children born to a union between a slave and a free woman became a slave and the free woman became in effect a slave during the life of her husband. See "An Act Concerning Negroes and Other Slaves" (September 6, 1664), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 533-534.

[558]Anthony F. Allison, "A Question of Jurisdiction: Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon and the Catholic Laity, 1625-1631," Recusant History, 16 (1982), 113, 117, 136.

[559]Edwin Beitzell, The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's Co., Md. (Abell, Md.: n.p., 1976), p. 28.

[560]As early as 1444 the Portuguese Bishop of Algarve, like his fellow capitalists of the period, invested in slave buying expeditions to Guinea. In 1537 Pope Paul III authorized a slave market at Lisbon at which 12,000 Africans were sold yearly for transportation to the West Indies. Each slave that passed through Sâo Tomé, a central Portuguese port for Angola and the Congo, was branded with a cross. Between 1516 and the 1620s, the crown commonly sold licenses to Portuguese convents, monasteries, and religious orders to import slaves. By 1620 Spain and Portugal had 250,000 African slaves. See William Phillips, Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985), pp. 138, 156, 186; Alden Vaughan, "The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth-Century Virginia," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 97 (July 1989), 322.

[561]Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges and Figges, 1923), vol. 2, pp. 611-622.

[562]Cushner, Farm and Factory, pp. 23, 39. According to W. Eugene Sheifs, S.J., "Seventeenth-Century Legal Crisis in the Missions," The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America, ed. Richard Greenleaf (Tempe, Ariz.: Center for Latin American Studies, 1977), p. 108, there was a crisis in the Mexican and other Spanish-American missions throughout the seventeenth century because Spain in 1574 decided to enforce episcopal jurisdiction over missionary districts. The local inhabitants and the regular clergy resisted.

[563]James Lockhart and Stuart Schwartz, Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 27.

[564]Joseph Bouchaud, L'Eglise en Afrique noire (Paris: La Palatine, 1958), p. 189; William Phillips, Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1985), pp. 138, 156, 186. In 1580 the Spanish and Portuguese empires came under the joint rule of Philip II (1556-1598) of Spain, when the Portuguese Aviz dynasty died out. In 1640 the Portuguese overthrew Hapsburg-Spanish rule.

[565]P. F. X. de Charlevoix, History and General Description of New France, trans. J. G. Shea (6 vols., Chicago: Loyola University Press, [1872] 1962).

[566]Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, pp. 207-208, 212, 214.

[567]Anthony Allison, "A Question of Jurisdiction, Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon and the Catholic Laity, 1625-1631," 7 Recusant History (1982-1983), pp. 112, 127, quotes a contemporary account which stated that Bishop Smith was "attributing to himself the decision of all causes in primia instantia, as those which concern marriages, testaments, legacies, and such like, as well of ecclesiastical as lay persons. Nevertheless, this his illimited and exorbitant episcopal authority, titles, offices and proceedings, are rejected, disapproved and condemned by the chief Catholics, as well clerics and lay, as a thing contrary to canons, practice and laws of Christian provinces." The Jesuits were opposed to Bp. Smith and the establishment of ecclesiastical courts in England because the bishop was not under their influence. Earlier in the 1620s they had gone along with the establishment of a bishop because the original bishop had been favorable to them.

[568]Philip Hughes, Rome and the Counter-Reformation in England (London: Burns and Oates, 1942), pp. 370-373, 382, 389; Hughes, Society of Jesus, vol. 1 (text), p. 206.

[569]See Peter Hersche, Musse und Verschwendung: europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitaler (Freiburg: Herder, 2006) and his article, “‘Klassizistischer’ Katholizismus Der konfessionsgeschichtliche Sonderfall Frankreich,” Historische Zeitschrift, (1996), vol. 262, pp. 357-389, at 385, which quotes from an earlier version of this preent chapter and expands on the resistance to the Baroque papacy in Europe.

[570]Edward Terrar, "Catholic Mission History and the 500th Anniversary of Christopher Columbus' Arrival: A Time for Mourning and for Celebrating," Mission Studies: Journal of the International Association for Mission Studies (Chicago & Hamburg, Germany: 1992), vol. 9 (1), p. 15.

[571]Theresa Chu, R.S.J., "The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association," Ecumenist (May-June 1984), vol. 22, p. 52.

[572]Vincent C. Chrypinski, "The Movement of Progressive Catholics in Poland," Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1958), p. 129.

[573]Jerzy Krasnowolski, "Wobec przemian," Dzis i Jutro, no. 38 (September 19, 1954), p. 1.

[574]Lucjan Blit, The Eastern Pretender, Boleslaw Piasecki: His Life and Times (London: Hutchinson, 1965), p. 172).

[575]Chrypinski, "The Movement of Progressive Catholics," p. 161.

[576]Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol 1, p. 412. In Hapsburg Spain there were 9,000 convents in the 1630s. The Jesuits wanted to repeat that pattern in Maryland. See Edwardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973), p. 36.

[577]Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, pp. 417-418; vol. 1, nos. 16 and 18.

[578]Quoted in Bernard Steiner, Maryland During the English Civil Wars in John Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science (Baltimore), series 24, nos. 11-12 (1907), p. 18.

[579]Copley, "Letter to Lord Baltimore" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, pp. 162-165. In cultivating rich women, the clergy followed their founder. René Fülöp-Miller in The Power and Secret of the Jesuits (New York: G. Braziller, 1956), pp. 49-50, writes of Ignatius’s social climbing during the early days of his ministry in Barcelona:

He had at that time already gathered round him a circle of women disciples, a host of leisured ladies from the higher ranks of society, who felt themselves drawn to him by pious curiosity. . . As was customary in those days, these good souls competed for the presence of the pilgrim at their tables, in order to have devout discussions with him.

[580]Joan Thirsk, "The European Debate on Customs of Inheritance, 1500-1700," Family Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800, ed. Jack Goody (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 178, 185.

[581]John ap Robert, Apology for a Younger Brother ([1634] 1972), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 103.

[582]Hugh Peter, A Word for the Armie and two Words to the Kingdom (London: M. Simmons for G. Calvert, 1647), p. 12. Peter was an Independent clergyman in New England from 1635 to 1641 before he was elected to represent Massachusetts Bay Colony in England. He served as chaplain with the Parliamentary army from 1642 to 1649, helped in the execution of Charles I, sought to contain the London capitalists' war policy against the Dutch, and was executed for his role against Charles I when the Royalists regained power.

[583]Christopher Hill, God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (New York: Dial Publishers, 1970), p. 140.

[584]Thomas, "Women and the Civil War Sects," p. 42.

[585]William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England and its Origins and Development (3 vols., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1879], 1978), vol. 1, sect. 94; John Figgis, Divine Right of Kings (Gloucester, Massachusetts: P. Smith, 1914, 1970), pp. 22-23.

[586]Mortmain Act (1279), 7 Edward 1, Stat. 2, in Robert Drayton (ed.), Statutes of the Realm (3rd ed., 11 vols, London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1950), 1.5; Sandra Raban, Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279-1500 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 2-11.

[587]From the time of the false decretals (Isidorian Forgeries, 847-857 A.D.), if not earlier, the hierarchy and Rome had promoted the idea of their and not the Catholics' ownership and control of church property as a divine right. See Ronald J. Cox, A Study in the Juridic Status of Laymen in the writing of the medieval Canonist (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1959), p. 93. The Maryland anti-mortmain policy was included in the "Laws of England," which Thomas Cornwallis proposed and the 2nd assembly in March 1638 adopted as a replacement for Calvert's code, which they rejected. See Everstine, General Assembly, p. 42.

[588]Before the revolution, the Slovakian church and tenants on church land had been paying rent to a hierarchy that ruled from and was Hungarian, not Slovakian. Similarly, the Czech church had been paying to a hierarchy that was German, not Czech. See Richard Nyrop, Czechoslovakia, a Country Study (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1982), p. 104. The clerical capitalists believed no more in the cross, patience and long-suffering than did their secular counterparts. Eight hundred clergy were jailed for counterrevolutionary activity. Testimony against these clergy came from working-class Catholics and clergy. Typically, on June 19, 1949 Bishop (later Cardinal) Josef Beran was shouted down by his own congregation for giving an anticommunist sermon. He was forced out of his post in March 1951 and later left the country and died in Rome. When new bishops were chosen in the 1960s, they generally belonged to Pacem in Terris. Nevertheless the people were said to prefer running the church without a hierarchy. In 1980 only 3 of the 12 dioceses had bishops. See Nyrop, Czechoslovakia, p. 102; Dennis J. Dunn, Detente and Papal-Communist Relations, 1962-1978 (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1979), p. 158.

[589]The priests and nuns who taught or worked in hospitals and other social service agencies took an oath of loyalty "to the welfare of the people":

I promise on my honor and conscience that I shall be loyal to the Czechoslovak Republic and its People's Democracy and that I shall do nothing that is detrimental to its interests, its security and its integrity. As a citizen of the People's Democracy I shall honestly and sincerely carry out all duties which are incumbent upon me in the position which I occupy, and I shall support with all my strength the efforts towards reconstruction which are being made for the welfare of the people. See Dunn, Detente, p. 156.

[590]Under the National Front government the religious orders were controlled by foreign governments that used them to subvert the working class rule. Among those who led the anti-mortmain movement was the Catholic priest, Joseph Plojhar. During World War II he worked in the anti-Nazi underground and was jailed with communists in a concentration camp. After the war he became the Minister of Health in the National Front government. In 1951 he helped establish the Peace Movement of Catholic Clergy (MHKD), to which five thousand of the nation's seven thousand clergy belonged. In international policy the MHKD backed in its publications and in the pulpit the Soviets and wars of liberation. It opposed the threat to peace of the U.S. and its NATO allies. In domestic policy the MHKD supported collectivization and socialization and fought against national chauvinism. The successor clerical organization to the MHKD in the 1960s was the Czechoslovak Association of Catholic Clergy or, more commonly, Pacem in Terris. This later name was taken from Pope John XXIII's encyclical of 1963. The Pacem in Terris priests were divided into Czech and Slavia branches. Pacem in Terris came under attack by Alexander Dubcek in 1968, but this was short-lived. Dubcek and the KSC's class collaborationist members were purged by 1969. See Paul E. Zinner, Communist Strategy and Tactics in Czechoslovakia, 1918-1948 (New York: Frederich Praeger, 1963), p. 74); Nyrop, Czechoslovakia, pp. 105, 176; See Dunn, Detente, p. 157.

[591]In addition to voluntary economic contributions from the Maryland Catholics, the clergy also received yearly revenue from Europe by advertising their "needy" Maryland mission. See Maryland Clergy, "Letter to Provincial" (1655-1656), Hughes, Society of Jesus, documents, vol. 1, no. 8, T; ibid, text, vol. 2, p. 59. The Jesuit clergy supported the glebe legislation because they were landlords. They would have had to provide part of their holdings for it and the income would have gone to secular and Anglican clergy. See Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 410; Margaret Aston, "Lollardy and Sedition, 1381-1431," Past and Present, no. 17 (1960), pp. 9, 16.

[592]Roger D. Sell and Anthony Johnson (eds.) in Writing and Religion in England, 1558-1689: Studies in Community-Making and Cultural Memory (Burlington, VT.: Ashgate, 2009), p. 67 expand on this after quoting an earlier version of this present study.

[593]Copley, "Letter to Lord Baltimore" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, pp. 162-165.

[594]John Steward (ed.), A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1951), document 31, pp. 169-181.

[595]Cecil Calvert, "Instructions Given to Commissioners for my Treasury in Maryland" (November 18, 1645), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, p. 143. The Jesuits expected the secular clergy to minister to labor, but at the same time they obstructed such service, including denying funds to the seculars for such services that had been entrusted to the Jesuits. 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.

[596]Cushner, Farm and Factory, p. 134. In India the Jesuit missionary Roberto de Nobili (1577-1656) attempted to establish the Malabar rite. In this rite de Nobili ministered to the Brahmins and other landlord castes. The rite involved penance, praying and studying the sacred law. De Nobili segregated himself from working people and the Catholic clergy who ministered to them. Likewise in China the Jesuit missionaries exercised a preferential option for the rich. In the first half of the 17th century they spent their time attempting to minister to the Mandarian officials of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). They did not side with the working people and the widespread agrarian revolts in the 1620s and 1630s which grew into a revolutionary war led by Li Tzu-Ch'eng and Chang Hsien-Chung. The agrarian program involved confiscating large estates and giving them to the people who farmed them. In 1644 the revolutionaries took possession of Peking and overthrew the Ming Dynasty. The Jesuits, such as Michael Walta and Adam Schall who had helped the Ming to make canons and fortifications, were killed or forced into hiding. In time China's capitalist class regrouped and went over to the side of the Manchu imperialists. The Manchus invaded the country, partially beat back the revolutionaries and established the Manchurian Ch'ing dynasty (1644-1911). See George Dunne, Generation of Giants: The Story of the Jesuits in China in the Last Decades of the Ming Dynasty (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1962), pp. 317, 320, 357; James Parsons, The Peasant rebellions of the Ming dynasty (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1970).

[597]Jacques LeGoff, Medieval Civilization 400-1500 (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p. 292.

[598]Juan Ignacio Gutierrez Nieto, Las comunidades como movimiento antiseñorial; la formación del bando realista en la guerra civil castellana de 1520-1521 (Barcelona: Editorial Planeta, 1973), p. 167, quotes a revolutionary pamphleteer as complaining that landlord troops such as Ignatius were “wolves, robbers and tyrants” in breaking into houses, murdering the peasants and using churches as garrisons.

[599]Stephen Haliczer, The Comuneros of Castile: The Forging of a Revolution, 1475-1521 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981), p. 149.

[600]James Brodrick, St. Ignatius of Loyola: The Pilgrim Years (London: Burns and Oates, 1956), pp. 52-56; Candido de Dalmases, S.J., Ignatius of Loyola: Founder of the Jesuits, His Life and Work (Arnand, India: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1985), pp. 39-40. One of the comunero priests was Fray Pablo, the prior at the Dominican monastery in León. He served as an officer in the comunero legislative assembly, the speaker of which, according to one account was a cloth-shearer. Fray Pablo's pamphlet, Guiá del Cielo, ed. Vicente Beltrán de Heredia (Barcelona: J. Flors, [1520] 1963), p. 195, denounced the capitalist class for their contempt for the useful labor of farmers and shepherds and their oppression of the working class. He wrote, as translated by Irma Pazmiño:

A human body, though it is made up of many parts, is a single unit because all the parts, though many, make one body. As St. Paul in 1 Co:12 says, “It is precisely the parts of the body that seem to be the weakest which are the indispensable ones.” So we see that those persons whom we do not think much of, are the ones we need the most. The farmers and shepherds who till the bread and wine and raise sheep feed us all, be the president, the king, the pope, and other men. Much recognition is due these men who work hard and seldom make the headlines. No matter what is these men’s interest for tilling the land and raising sheep, if they would not do their work, we would have to do it or we would not eat. Our money would not be worth much, if there were no food products to buy in the market.

Historian Henry Seaver has studied the religious motivation of the clergy who joined the comuneros. He writes in The Great Revolt in Castile: A Study of the Comunero Movement of 1520-1521 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1928), pp. 302-304, "The clergy in immense numbers, supported, worked for, preached for, even fought for the comunero cause, which was formidable because inspired by something of humanitarian and even religious fervor." See Luis Alonso-Getino, "Un Comunero Intellectual," La Ciencia Tomista, no. 69 (Madrid: Mayo-Junio.1921).

[601]Joseph de Guibert, The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice, A Historical Study. (Chicago: Institute of Jesuit Sources 1964), p. 92.

[602]Christopher Bagshaw, A True Relation of the Faction begun by Fr. Persons at Rome (1601), ed. Thomas Law (London: D. Nutt, 1889), p. 105.

[603]Copley, "Letter to Lord Baltimore" (April 3, 1638), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, vol. 28, p. 169.

[604]Ibid., pp. 162, 164, 166.

[605]Hughes, Society of Jesus, documents, vol. 1, no. 8, T (1655-1656); ibid., text, vol. 2, p. 59.

[606]Paul LeJeune, S.J., "Hardships We Must be Ready to Endure when Wintering with the Savages," An Autobiography of Martyrdom: Spiritual Writings of the Jesuits in New France, ed. François Roustang, S.J. (St. Louis: B. Herder Co., 1964), p. 63.

[607]Vincent Lapomarda, S.J., "The Jesuit Missions of Colonial New England," Essex Institute Historical Collections, 126 (April 1990), 109; James T. Moore, Indian and Jesuit: A Seventeenth-Century Encounter (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1982); Reuben G. Thwaites (ed.), The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (73 vols., Cleveland: Burrows Brothers, Co., 1896-1901), vol. 13, p. 123, see also ibid., vol. 7, pp. 34-64, chapter 12, for quotes from the French Jesuit missionaries about the miserable lives which they led among the Indians.

[608]George Manners, "Deposition" (October 3, 1648), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 415; William Boreman, "Deposition" (May 28, 1650), ibid., vol. 10, p. 12; Beitzell, Jesuit Missions, p. 15.

[609]Christopher Haigh, "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 31 (1981), 138-139.

[610]Francis Courtsey, "English Jesuit Colleges in the Low Countries, 1593-1776," Heythrop Journal 4 (1963), 254-263.

[611]The Italian historian Marina Roggero in Insegnar lettere: Ricerche di storia dell’istruzione in età moderna (Turin: Edizioni dell’Orso, 1992) comments that by the end of the seventeenth century these schools were in decline because the Jesuit curriculum did not prepare students for useful employment. Rather they produced scores of unemployed or underemployed clergymen, lawyers and writers. In its hatred for working people, Jesuit education paralleled present-day American education. About the class nature of American education veteran communist teacher Judith Albert in “The Schools in Crisis: Don’t Exaggerate Method,” Political Affairs (New York), vol. 68, (April 1988), pp. 36-37), writes:

Being a good teacher is a sine qua non for every Communist—as it should be for all who carry the responsibility of raising the young. . . The public schools in our country exist—now, as always—to serve the needs of the system which sustains them. Educational policies, and the funding used to implement these policies are controlled by the various governmental agencies—which themselves are tools of monopoly capitalism. It should be evident then, that in times when industrial growth and expansion require a larger skilled work force, the schools are geared up to provide one. In times of depression , or when automation results in a lesser demand for workers, the public schools are also “re-tooled” so they turn out fewer “products” with the necessary skills.

Albert continues her criticism of capitalist schools, “In today’s high-tech economy, when capitalism needs only a small work force of highly skilled technicians, the majority of our youth are again, so far as the ruling class is concerned, expendable. Understanding that the school system reflects the society and its policies, is basic to our analysis of existing problems—from under-funding, to dilapidated buildings; from overcrowding and excessive class size to overt racism and the sabotage of bi-lingual education; from the open active entry of big business into the class room to the shameful failure of the schools to arm millions of working class and minority children with even minimal work skills. Nor is this the first time that there is a ‘crisis in public education’ about ‘who is to be taught and what is to be taught.’ Such crisis is inherent in the very nature of the system and the contradictions in the education system are bound to sharpen as the contradictions of monopoly capitalism itself are bound to sharpen.” Albert concludes her analysis of capitalist education:

In my view the current “reform movement” is yet another example of the system adapting to the needs of the moment. Since it will never admit that it deliberately fails millions of children, its spokesmen always concoct new educational jargon and pseudo-theories to cover up the basic truths and to “sell” the latest cure-all program to teachers, parents and public in general.

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

[613]John O'Malley, "Was Ignatius Loyola a Church Reformer? How to Look at Early Modern Catholicism," Catholic Historical Review, 77 (1991), 181-182. The normal Jesuit mode of operation was not a parish but a college. They used the term college not in the educational sense, but meaning a collection of people. It consisted of a building, at least 12 Jesuits, and an endowment to pay for them.

[614]Ignatius Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society Of Jesus, trans. George Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970), p. 275, part VII, ch. 2, paragraph 622 d-c; John O'Malley, "Renaissance Humanism and the Religious Culture of the First Jesuits," Heythrop Journal, 31 (1990), 482.

[615]Paul Meyvaert, "Gregory the Great and the Theme of Authority," Spode House Review, (1966), 24.

[616]Ibid., p. 23.

[617]Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the Society of Jesus to Europe" (1638), in Foley, Records of the English Province, vol. 3, p. 371.

[618]Typical manuals for the capitalist included, I. R., A Manual, or Meditations (1596), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 116; Vincenzo Bruno, S.J., An Abridgement of Meditations (1599), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 246; Nicholas Berzetti, The Practice of Meditating (1613), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 42; Antonio de Molina (d. 1619), A Treatise of Mental Prayer ([1617] 1970), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 15; James Anderton, The Liturgy of the Mass (1620), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 184; Fulvio Androzzi, Certain Devout Considerations of Frequenting the Blessed Sacrament (1606), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 23; Anonymous, The General Rubriques of the Breviary (1617), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 351; Henry Fitzsimon, The Justification and Exposition of the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass (1611), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 108; John Heigham (d. 1639), A Devout Exposition of the Holy Mass (1622), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 205; Cresacre More (d. 1649), Meditations and devout discourses upon the Blessed Sacrament (1639), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 20; Achilles Galliardi, Jesus Psalter, 1575: An Abridgement of Christian Perfection (1625), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 176; Luis de Granada (d. 1588), Of Prayer and Meditation (1582), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 64.

[619]Elizabeth Hudson, "The Catholic Challenge to Puritan Piety, 1580-1620," Catholic Historical Review, 77 (1991), 6. Richard Hopkins translated Spanish Dominican Luis de Granada, Of Prayer and Meditation, Wherein are Contained Fourteen Devout Meditations [1582] in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 64 and by the same author, A Memorial of a Christian Life [1586], in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 272. Hopkins dedicated the former work to the "virtuous noblemen who are far more effective in setting the proper religious example among common folk than are the clergy." Other Catholic works in favor among the Puritan gentry were Thomas Rogers' translation of De Imitatione Christi (London: E.P., 1640) and Edmund Bunny's edition of Robert Persons' First Book of the Christian Exercise, appertaining to resolution (1582).

[620]Thomas Hawkins, A View of the Real Power of the Pope and of the Priesthood over the laity, with an account of how they use it (London: n.p., [1639], 1733), p. 508.

[621]"Inventory of Leonard Calvert" (March 11, 1648), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 320.

[622]Virgilio Cepari, The Life of Aloysius Gonzaga [1627] in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 201, pp. 41, 63.

[623]Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639, 1640), in Foley, Records, vol. 3, pp. 372-373, 378-379; John Brooke, S.J. (real name Morgan, d. 1641), "Letter to the English Provincial" (1641), in ibid., vol. 3, p. 386.

[624]Virgilio Cepari, The Life of Aloysius Gonzaga [1627] in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 201, p. 92.

[625]Hughes, Society of Jesus, text, vol. 1, p. 5.

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

[627]Andrew White, S.J. was condemned by Rome on November 15, 1647 for supporting an oath to the parliamentary government in London. At that point Calvert and the Jesuits had abandoned royalism in the hopes that Parliament would overthrow the Maryland Catholics. See Thomas Clancy, S.J., "The Jesuits and the Independents, 1647," Archivium Historicum Societatis Jesu (Rome), 40 (1971), 73, 85.

[628]Thomas Worthington (ed.), Holie Bible: Old Testament, faithfully translated into English from the Latin by the English College of Dowai (1609), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vols. 265-266.

[629]Ibid.

[630]Walter Montagu, Miscellanea Spiritualia: or, Devout Essays, the Second Part (London: John Crook, 1654), p. 168; Alonso Rodriquez, S.J., Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtues, trans. Tobie Matthew and Basil Brooke (3 vols., Chicago: Loyola University Press, [1631] 1929), vol. 2, pp. 165-354, vol. 3, pp. 275-376.

[631]John Abbot, Jesus Praefigured or a Poem of the Holy Name of Jesus ([1623] 1970), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 54, preface.

[632]William Davenant, Sir William Davenant's Gondibert: An Heroic Poem, pp. 13, 30, cited in Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 105, 301.

[633]Nicholas Caussin, The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity (1626, England eds. 1634, 1638, 1650, 1663, 1664, 1678, 1898), trans. Basil Brooke, in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 1, p. 64; see also, vol. 1, pp. 51, 62, 81.

[634]Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment, p. 290.

[635]Ibid., p. 103.

[636]Nathaniel Shurtleff (ed.), Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay (New York: AMS Press, [1854], 1968), vol. 3, p. 204.

[637]Thomas Parker, A True Copy of a letter Written by Mr. Thomas Parker, a Learned and Godly Minister in New England unto a member of the Assembly of Divines now at Westminster (London: n.p., 1644), pp. 3-4. John Cotton on the other hand believed the role of the clergy was to submit to congregational control. See John Cotton, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England (London: M. Simmons, 1645), pp. 111, 113-116; Betram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 102, remarked that the legislature in Virginia customarily opposed the clergy on issues such as church taxation, patronage, and power.

[638]William Shaw, A History of the English Church During the Civil Wars and Under the Commonwealth, 1640-1660 (2 vols.: New York: Longmans, Green, 1900), vol. 1, p. 121.

[639]Hughes, Society of Jesus, vol. 2 (text), pp. 13-14, 613-617.

[640]Nor in fact was gentry religion itself interested in patient suffering and the next life, when it was a question of their own class interests. When laboring people dictated market relations during the Civil War, capital talked not of patience but, as Walter Montagu put it in his Miscellanea Spiritualia, p. 223, of "death" for those in rebellion.

[641]Nicholas Caussin, The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity [1626, 1634, 1638, 1650, 1663, 1664, 1678, 1898], 1977, trans. Basil Brooke in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 367, first page, unnumbered.

[642]Godfrey Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, A Recusant Family (Newport, Monmouthshire: R. H. Jones, 1953), p. 463.

[643]Donald Hanson, From Kingdom to Commonwealth: The Development of Civic Consciousness in English Political Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 76, 88.

[644]Hugh O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges and Figges, 1923), vol. 1, p. 239.

[645]Nicholas Caussin, The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity (1626, England eds. 1634, 1638, 1650, 1663, 1664, 1678, 1898), trans. Basil Brooke, in D. M. Rogers, English Recusant Literature 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977), vol. 3, p. 69, which quoted Thomas Aquinas, Opus 2, c. 102.

[646]Walter Montagu, Miscellanea Spiritualia: or, Devout Essays, the Second Part (London: John Crook, 1654), pp. 87-88, bk. 3, canto vi, p. 243, believed that "the outward qualities of the wealthy and beautiful announced their inner virtues." Montagu's capitalist view of the court can be contrasted with that of Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger's A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. George Stronach (London: J. M. Dent, [1626] 1904), which attacked the superficial splendor of the court. See Doris Adler, Philip Massinger (Boston: Twayne Pub., 1987), p. 93.

[647]Among the popular anti-royalist authorities in Maryland were Edward Coke, William Lambarde, Thomas Smith and John Selden. See Susan Falb, Advice and Ascent: The Development of the Maryland, 1635 -1689 (New York: Garland Publishers, 1986), p.136; Edward Coke, The Reports of Edward Coke (6 vols., London: J. Butterworth, [1600-1615] 1826), part 5, p. iii; "Richard Lusthead's Estate" (August 23, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, p. 94; "John Cockshot's Estate" (October 28, 1642), ibid., vol. 4, p. 97; and "Thomas Adams Estate" (February 6, 1641), ibid., vol. 4, pp. 99-100.

[648]Christopher Hill, "The Norman Yoke," Democracy and the Labor Movement, ed. John Saville (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1954), pp. 21-23.

[649]James Wadsworth (trans.), The Civil Wars of Spain. . . by P de Sandoval (London: William DuGard, 1652); K. W. Swart, The Miracle of the Dutch Republic as Seen in the Seventeenth Century (London: H. K. Lewis, 1967); Ernst H. Kossmann, In Praise of the Dutch Republic: Some Seventeenth-Century Attitudes (London: H. Lewis, 1963).

[650]Margo Todd, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (New York: Cambridge University Press. 1987), pp. 188, 190; Jon Butler, "Thomas Teackle's 133 Books: A Great Library on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1697," William and Mary Quarterly, 49 (July 1992), 471. The Catholic architect Inigo Jones during the 1630s helped renew the late republican Roman tradition in architecture, not in politics. See R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), p. 84; Joseph Gillow (ed.), A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics from the Breach with Rome in 1534 to the Present Time (5 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1885-1902), vol. 3, pp. 650-653.

[651]Maryland's ambassadors to Amsterdam were James Neale and Samuel Goldsmith. See Falb, Advice and Ascent, p. 270.

[652]Smuts, Court Culture, p. 230; Robert Wintour, To Live Like Princes: A Short Treatise Concerning the New Plantation Now Erecting in Maryland, ed. John Krugler (Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library, [1635], 1976), p. 29.

[653]Joan Wake, The Brudenells of Deene (London: Casell, 1954), p. 167.

[654]These ideas can be seen in the religious books which the gentry subsidized, such as Caussin, Holy Court, vol. 1, p. 7.

[655]Wake, Brudenells of Deene, p. 128.

[656]Reginold H. Kiernan, The Story of the Archdiocese of Birmingham (West Bromwich, England: Joseph Wares, 1951), p. 13; K. J. Lindley, "The Part Played by the Catholics in the Civil War," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1968, p. 249.

[657]Anonymous, Good Catholic No Bad Subject, or a letter from a Catholic Gentleman to Mr. Richard Baxter, modestly accepting the challenge (London: John Dinkins, 1660), p. 1.

[658]Thomas Brudenell quoted in Joan Wake, The Brudenells of Deene (London: Casell, 1954), p. 128; see also, p. 124. Both Walter Montagu and the Catholic William Davenant wrote dramatic works based in neo-Platonic philosophy to teach the sacred nature of monarchy. According to Kevin Sharpe, Montagu's the Shepherd's Paradise (1632) set the pattern for courtly drama in the 1630s. It taught that "In the body politic, the constitution of Platonic love was that of the absolute rule of the king, as the soul of the commonwealth, over creatures inhabiting a world of sense and illusion." See Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 282; Walter Montagu, Shepherd's Paradise: A Comedy Privately Acted Before the Late King Charles by the Queen's Majesty and Ladies of Honor (London: n.p., [1632] 1659). Queen Henrietta Maria and other members of the court performed the Shepherd's Paradise on January 10, 1633. The production took eight hours. It had royalist lines such as "the true nature of monarchy lies in the marriage of will and law in the polity and in the person of the king. To separate these is to abuse the nature of man and monarchy." It was treason to divide the king's will from the law, that is, the king's will, not Parliament, made the law. See Montagu, Shepherd's Paradise, quoted in Sharpe, Criticism and Complement, p. 43.

[659]Thomas Aquinas, On the Governance of Rulers, ed. Gerald Phelan (Toronto: St. Michaels College Press, 1935), p. 88; see also, pp. 39-41.

[660]Bp. Richard Smith, The Life of Lady Magdalen Viscountesse Montague (1627), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 54, p. 3; John Sweet, The Apologies of the Most Christian Kings for the Fathers of the Society of Jesus (1611), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 48; G. K. (trans.), The Roman Martyrology (1627), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vol. 222; Alfonso de Villegas, The Lives of Saints (1623), in Rogers, English Recusant Literature, vols. 355-356.

[661]Philip Massinger, The Maid of Honor (1630), I, 1, 23-36; A. H. Cruickshank, Philip Massinger (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1920), p. 15.

[662]George Calvert, The Answer to Tom-Tell-Truth: The Practice of Princes and the Lamentations of the Kirke (London: n.p., [1627], 1642), pp. 8, 16.

[663]Ibid., pp. 3, 15. Like the crown which during the 1630s displaced the rule of Parliament and the proprietor's friend, Thomas Wentworth, who allowed no right of legislative initiative to the Irish Parliament, Calvert wanted to limit the Maryland assembly. See O'Grady, Strafford and Ireland, vol. 1, p. 238. The Irish Parliament had only the right to petition and to veto proposed statutes.

[664]John Oglander, A Royalist's Notebook, The Commonplace Book (New York: B. Blom, 1971), pp. 110-111.

[665]William Davenant, Sir William Davenant's Gondibert: An Heroic Poem, ed. David Gladish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1651] 1971), p. 13. Gondibert was a political allegory inspired by Pliny. The Lombard king, Gondibert, was a symbol for Charles II.

[666]George L. Smyth, The Monuments and Genii of St. Paul's Cathedral and of Westminster Abby (London: John Williams, 1839), p. 365.

[667]William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1768-1769), bk. 4, *407.

[668]John Davies, A History of Wales (London: Penguin Press, 1993), pp. 22, 69. In 400 AD the inhabitants of Wales spoke Brittonic; in 700 AD they spoke Welsh.

[669]Ibid., 58.

[670]Gervase Markham, The New Metamorphosis (1600), as quoted in Nicholas Canny, Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1560-1800 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), p. 43; Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race: Racial Oppression and Social Control (New York: Verso, 1994). Illustrative of British imperialist rule in Ireland were the Statutes of Kilkenny (1366), which outlawed sexual and other alliances between the Irish and English, presentation of the Irish to benefices (no Irish clergy), patronizing Irish entertainers, use of the Irish language or costume and giving land to Irish for pasture. See Richard Hoffman, "Outsiders by Birth and Blood: Racist Ideologies and Realities on the Periphery of Medieval Culture," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, n.s. 6 (New York: AMS Press, 1983), p. 7.

[671]Adrian van Oss, Catholic Colonialism: A Parish History of Guatemala: 1524-1821 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 126-127, 143, writes that the Spanish crown decreed in 1550, 1605, 1634, and 1636 that the clergy establish schools and teach the Indians Spanish and conduct religious services in Spanish. The Tzotzil-speaking Indians in Southern Mexico were encouraged to use the Spanish word for God (dios). But to the present day, they use the Tzotzil words ch'ultotik (God) and kakual (lord) in their Basic Christian Communities. See Mario Humberto Ruiz, Las Lenguas del Chiapas Colonial (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma, 1989), p. 226.

[672]Robert Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966), pp. 55-60, discusses, among others, Francis Xavier, S.J. in Japan. Xavier used only the Portuguese word for God, Deos, because he wished to avoid the equivocal expression in use among the Japanese sects. According to Ricard, the sixteenth-century Mexican imperialists attempted to outlaw the translation of the Bible into Nahuatl. Just as the magnates in Portugal and Spain feared that the laboring people would learn "Protestant" doctrines from vernacular translations of scripture, so it was feared the Indians would find Protestant doctrines if permitted to read scripture. John Ingham, Mary, Michael, and Lucifer: Folk Catholicism in Central Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986), pp. 9-10, disputes those who maintain that Catholicism, at least in central Mexico, was simply the religion of the conquerors. He finds that the laboring Nahuatl Indians used Catholicism and the conquest to drive a wedge between themselves and their enemies, the Indian capitalists:

One noteworthy feature of this (Nahuatl) syncretism was the identification of the supernatural patrons of the indigenous elite with the forces of evil, and the supernatural advocates of commoners with adamic and Holy figures in the Christian pantheon. Thus religious syncretism in the sixteenth century implied moral criticism of secular wealth and power and expressed the aspirations of the common people.

[673]J. Frederick Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds, Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and their Development in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society, (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), pp. 50-51, writes that the Europeans' missionary policy of forced conversion in Virginia was directed by the Virginia Company in London. The First Anglo-Powhatan War (1609-1614) involved taking the Indians' land and produce, eliminating their religious leadership, and imposing an Anglicanism that would apologize for the new order. The forced conversion policy did not originate with the laboring Europeans in Virginia. The historian Neal Salisbury, "Prospero," Papers of the Sixth Algonquian Conference, 1974, ed. William Cowan (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1975), p. 260, writes of the New England ministry:

John Eliot demanded that the Indians totally renounce not only their own pasts. . . but their entire ethnic and cultural heritage. . . His method, then, was to attempt to break down the converts' personalities and mold them according to his simplistic but rigid ideals. [His purpose] was to exercise personal domination over them, creating as complete a dependency relationship as possible.

[674]Helen C. Rountree in "Powhatans and other Wooldland Indians as Travelers," Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993), has remarked that prior to the European settlement the Indians were already a gene-mixing, multilingual, internationalist people with extensive trade, cultural and religious contacts from the area of present-day Mexico to Canada. Present-day Indian chauvinists are mistaken in saying that their ancestors rarely traveled outside their home territory.

[675]Floyd Lounsbury, "Iroquoian Languages," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, pp. 335-336.

[676]Helen Rountree, Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), pp. 10-11, 40. The Powhatans established their empire in the 1580s because they were under pressure from the Siouan-speaking Monacans and Pocoughtaonacks in Western Virginia and the marauding Iroquoians to the north.

[677]Ibid., p. 13; Stephen R. Potter, "European Effects on Virginia Algonquian Exchange and Tribute Systems in the Seventeenth Century: An Example from the Tidewater Potomac," Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southwest, ed. Peter Wood (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), pp. 151-172.

[678]Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds," pp. 57, 59.

[679]Francis Jennings, "Indians and Frontiers in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), pp. 220-222.

[680]James Axtell, "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 81 (1986), 2.

[681]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 5.

[682]Cecil Calvert, "Commission to Make War against northern Indians" (June 11, 1639), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 3, pp. 87-88; Leonard Calvert, "Proclamation to Kill Susquehannock and Wkomeses" (January 26, 1642), ibid., vol. 3, p. 129; Fausz, "Merging and Emerging Worlds," pp. 65, 69; Christian Feest, "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, p. 240.

[683]"Act for an Expedition against the Indians" (September 13, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 196-198.

[684]"Court Proceedings against Giles Brent" (October 10 and 17, December 1 and 3, 1642), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 4, pp. 126, 128-134, 155-156, 159-161.

[685]The Conoy who had lived on the Yeocomico River joined the Onawmanients, who were known to the English as the Machodoc in the mid-seventeenth century. The name Machodoc resulted because the first English patents given by the Indians in their territory were taken on a creek of that name. By the 1660s the Machodocs were listed as the Appomatux and later as the Nanzaticos. See Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 122.

[686]Lewger and Hawley, A Relation of Maryland, 1635, in Hall, Narratives, pp. 73-74. In exchange for being allowed to settle at St. Mary's, the Europeans made payment to the Conoy in the form of trade goods.

[687]W. Stitt Robinson, "Conflicting Views on Landholding: Lord Baltimore and the Experiences of Colonial Maryland with Native Americans," Maryland Historical Magazine, 83 (1988), 92.

[688]Andrew White, S.J., "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (February 20, 1639), in Anonymous, “Calvert Papers,” Fund Publications, p. 204. Beaver pelts were obtained mainly from the Susquehannock and were used to make felt hats. The Conoy specialized in deer skins.

[689]The Conoy who so desired took regular religious instruction both before and after Baptism. In 1642 the clergy would spend about seven weeks in a village teaching the Apostles Creed, prayers, and catechism prior to baptism. See "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642), in Hall, Narratives, p. 135; see also, "Annual Letter" (1639, 1640) ibid., pp. 127-129, 131-132. Some Jesuit missionaries in Quebec in 1637 reported that after 3 years they had made only one baptism. This was because the Hurons with whom they were in contact did not stay for any length of time near where the clergy lived. The clergy there also emphasized the French language for indoctrination. See François Roustang, S.J., An Autobiography of Martyrdom: Spiritual Writings of the Jesuits in New France (St. Louis: Herder, 1964), p. 13.

[690]Andrew White's Algonquian translation of the Apostle's Creed, ten commandments, the "Hail Mary," and other prayers were written on the front cover of a 1616 sacramentary that came into the ownership of Henry Harrison, S.J. (1652-1700). The sacramentary is now at the Georgetown University archives. A linguistic discussion of the Algonquian prayers is contained in an unpublished (November 1974) paper by Ives Goddard in the Georgetown University archives. Nils G. Holmes, John Companius' Lutheran Catechism in the Delaware Language (Upsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1946), pp. 7, 32, discusses Algonquian cosmology. The Maryland Catholics throughout the period lacked an understanding of Algonquian grammar and possessed only a limited vocabulary. But there was a 40-year-old customary trade jargon or lingua franca.

[691]Oss, Catholic Colonialism, p. 21. James Merrell in "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," William and Mary Quarterly, 36 (1979), 548-570, remarkes, when the Maryland Indians such as the Piscataway made accommodations with the English, it was on their own terms in their own time.

[692]François Bontinck, La Lutte autour de la liturgie chinoise aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1962), pp. 27-66.

[693]Gary B. Nash in Red, White, and Black (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1974), pp. 2-3, discusses how the Indians and Africans as well as the Europeans shared or assimilated each others political, economic, and religious achievements.

[694]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 131, 132, 145, discusses Indian manufactured goods which appear in the European inventories: baskets, mats, ceramic pots and pipes, weirs, and dugout canoes.

[695]Axtell, "White Legend," p. 2. A supply ship such as one that landed at St. Mary's in 1634, carried 1,000 yards of cloth, 35 dozen wooden combs, 17 dozen horn, 300 pounds of brass kettles, 600 axes, 30 dozen hoes, 40 dozen hawks' bells, and 45 gross of sheffield knives. See Frederick Fausz, "Present at the `Creation': The Chesapeake World that Greeted the Maryland Colonists," Maryland Historical Magazine, 79 (Spring 1984), p. 16.

[696]Fausz, "Present at the `Creation,'" p. 10.

[697]"Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642), in Hall, Narratives, p. 137.

[698]White, Brief Relation, pp. 40, 42, 44; see also, Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, pp. 74, 88.

[699]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, p. 147.

[700]Lewger and Hawley, Relation of Maryland, p. 88.

[701]Rountree, Pocahontas's People, pp. 146-147.

[702]Robert Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, ed. Louis Wright (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, [1705], 1947), p. 174.

[703]See Whittington Johnson, "The Origins and Nature of African Slavery in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine 73 (1978), 236-245; "Bill for Limiting Times of Servants" (March 13, 1638), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 15, 80; "Court proceedings," (1655), ibid., vol. 41, pp. 190, 205; "Judicial and Testamentary Business" (July 1644), ibid., vol. 4, pp. 189, 304.

[704]"Trial of Five Servants" (1671), in Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 65, pp. 2-5.

[705]Karen Kupperman, Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

[706]John Baptista was said to be a moor of Barbara. See Browne (ed), Archives of Maryland, vol. 41, p. 499; Thomas Hughes, S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), text, vol. 1, p. 281; "Matthew de Sousa," "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," (manuscript, Annapolis: Hall of Records), Box 8.

[707]There were many African Sousas in 17th-century Portugal. Pedro de Sousa had been the Congo ambassador to Portugal under King Afonso I (ruled 1506-1543). See John Thornton, "The Development of an African Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Kongo, 1491-1750," Journal of African History, 25 (1984), 148. The 1996 version of this present study confused Mathew de Sousa with Mathias de Costa, who in his 1671 naturalization application stated he was from Portugal. David Bogan pointed out the error in his “Research Notes and Maryland Miscellany: Mathias de Sousa: Maryland’s First Colonist of African Descent,” Maryland Historical Magazine (2001), vol. 96, p. 83. See also, Maryland Provincial Patents, Liber 8, Folio 129, Maryland State Archives; and Archives of Maryland, vol. 2, p. 330.

[708]Fausz, "Present at the `Creation,'" p. 16.

[709]John Thornton, The Kingdom of Kongo: Civil War and Transition, 1641-1718 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), pp. 18, 22, 24, 41, 70, 85. Like the European landlords, the Congo kitome (landlords) taught that God put the ability to rule in their blood, which they passed to their descendants. Along with rule went ownership of land, the appropriation of agricultural and manufacturing surplus, and a contempt for labor. The Congo king, Garcia II and his fellow Catholic magnates in the 1640s traded slaves (including Catholics) for luxury goods with the Dutch governor and merchants in Brazil. See Georges Balandier, Daily Life in the Kingdom of the Kongo from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (New York: World Publishing Co., 1968), p. 181.

[710]Thornton, "The Development of an African Catholic Church," pp. 147-149; Anne Hilton, The Kingdom of Kongo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 25, 79-83, 122-123, 205, 217, 270, discusses Congo literacy.

[711]François Bontinck and D. Ndembe Nsasi, Le Catéchisme Kikongo de 1624: Réédition critique (Brussels: Academie royale des Sciences d'outre-mer, [1624, 1650] 1978), pp. 5, 17-23.

[712]John Thornton, "African Dimensions of the Stono Rebellion," American Historical Review, 96 (October 1991), 1103.

[713]Thornton, "The Development of the African Catholic Church," p. 148.

[714]Ibid., p. 149.

[715]Ibid., pp. 161-162, 164. King Afonso I (ruled 1506-1543) instituted the tithe in the 1510s. The government collected the tithe and paid the clergy from it. Similarly the Congo King Alvaro III (1614-1622) cut off the income of the Portuguese-appointed bishop of Sâo Salvador, Manuel Bautista in 1619. Later King Garcia II (ruled 1641-1661) cut off the Capuchin clergy in the mid-1650s. See ibid., p. 150. Because they had no income Manuel Bautista was forced to go back to Portugal and the Capuchins to adjust themselves to being ruled by the local church. John Thornton writes of Manuel Bautista, "Whenever Bp. Manuel Bautista excommunicated the king, which was often, the king would reply with this local `excommunication' in which the bishop would get no income, no wood, food or water until he was forced to give in. In fact Manuel Bautista received no income at all for his entire turbulent stay." See ibid., p. 162.

According to Thronton, the traditional studies are accurate in stating that the Congo used Catholicism for diplomatic leverage in Europe, but that made them no less Catholic than the Europeans who used it for leverage. An illustration of where Catholicism was used against rather than for Portuguese political purposes occurred in 1622. The Congo secured the papal denunciation of the Portuguese invasion of the southern Congo. See ibid., p. 155. The traditional studies were also accurate in stating that Congo Catholicism was syncretic, but the European clergy who ministered in Congo and their superiors in Rome both accepted it as orthodox. Because Catholicism was part of the indigenous religion, the BCCs have continued to exist to the present day. Their apparent disappearance in the nineteenth century was caused, in Thornton's view, by "a changing definition among European clergy (including Rome) as to what constituted Christianity, coupled with more chauvinistic attitudes toward non-western (and especially colonial) peoples that arose after 1850." See ibid., p. 148.

[716]Ibid., p. 152.

[717]Antonio Brasio (ed.), História de Reino de Congo: ms. 8080 da Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa (Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Historicos Ultramarinos, [1624], 1969), p. 20; Thornton, "The Development of the African Catholic Church," p. 152.

[718]Bontinck and Nsasi, Le Catéchisme Kikongo de 1624, pp. 5-6.

[719]John Marcum, The Angolan Revolution: The Anatomy of an Explosion, 1950-1962 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978), vol. 1, p. 300.

[720]John Marcum, The Angolan Revolution: Exile Politics and Guerrilla Warfare, 1962-1976 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978), vol. 2, p. 249.

[721]James Martin, A Political History of the Civil War in Angola, 1974-1990 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Pub., 1992) p. 80. Joao da Cruz Chisseva was another MPLA leader who was educated in a Catholic seminary. He attended Christ the King Seminary at Nova Lisboa for 9 years. In 1950 he and some of his fellow seminarians started organizing Bible, public hygiene and racial equality classes in the villages near the seminary. They published anti-Salazar leaflets and painted anti-colonial slogans on the walls. Under the influence of Patrice Lumumba, Chisseva left the seminary in 1954 to work full time in the Young Christians Movement (Juventude Crista de Angola, JCA). He and several other ex-seminarians were jailed on January 11, 1960. In prison Chisseva met MPLA members and joined an MPLA group called Bairro Operario (Branch No. 7). See Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, vol. 1, p. 129.

[722]James Connolly, Selected Writings, ed. P. Bernesford Ellis (New York: Monthly Review Press, [1909] 1973).

[723]Biblical scholar Jose Porfirio Miranda in Communism in the Bible (trans. Robert Barr, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1982), pp. 1-2, has commented on the influence of Luke's definition of communism:

The notion of communism is in the New Testament, right down to the letter - and so well put that in the twenty centuries since it was written, no one has come up with a better definition of communism than Luke in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35. In fact, the definition Marx borrowed from Louis Blanc, "From each one according to his capacities, to each one according to his needs," is inspired by, if not directly copied from, Luke's formulation eighteen centuries earlier. There is no clearer demonstration of the brainwashing to which the establishment keeps us subjected than the officially promulgated conception of Christianity as anti-communist.

[724]German Guzman, Camilo Torres (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1969), pp. 214, 242, 293.

[725]Quoted in Walter Broderick, Camilo Torres: A Biography of the Priest Guerrillero (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1973), p. 213.

[726]Gregg Jones, Red Revolution: Inside the Philippine Guerrilla Movement (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 203, 211-212.

[727]Ibid., p. 170.

[728]Ibid., p. 207.

[729]Ibid., pp. 202, 209.

[730]Ibid., pp. 203, 211-212, 297.

[731]Ibid., p. 170.

[732]E. R. Billings, Tobacco: Its History, Varieties, Culture, Manufacture and Commerce (Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co. 1875), p. 69.

[733]Henry Traill, Social England (London: Cassell & Co., 1902), vol. 4, p. 38.

[734]Map is based on Christian Feest, "Nanticokes and Neighboring Tribes," in Bruce Trigger, Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, p. 242.

[735]Al Luckenbach, Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County Maryland's First European Settlement (Annapolis, Md.: The Maryland State Archives, 1995), p. 9.

[736]Stephen Haliczer, The Comuneros of Castile: The Forging of a Revolution, 1475-1521 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981), p. 2.