It is singular that the clause in the XXII section of Charles Ist's charter to Lord Baltimore, relating to the interpretation of that instrument in regard to religion, has never been accurately translated, but that all commentators have, hitherto, followed the version given by Bacon. I shall endeavor to demonstrate the error.

The following parallel passages exhibit the original Latin, and Bacon's adopted translation:

It will be noticed that this Latin copy, according to the well known ancient usage in such papers, is not punctuated, so that we have no guidance, for the purpose of translation, from that source.

The translation of this section as far as the words: "Proviso semper quod nulla fiat interpretatio," &c. is sufficiently correct; but the whole of the final clause, should in my opinion, be rendered thus:—

"Provided always that no interpretation thereof be made, whereby God's holy rights and the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, or the allegiance due to us our heirs or successors, may, in any wise suffer by change, prejudice or diminution." Let me offer my reasons for this alteration:

1st, This new translation harmonizes with the evident grammatical construction of the Latin sentence, and is the easiest as well as most natural. The common version, given by Bacon: "God's holy and true CHRISTIAN religion,"—is grossly pleonastic, if not nonsensical. Among christians, "God's religion," can of course, only be the "christian religion;" and, with equal certainty, it is not only a "true" religion, but a "holy" one!

2nd, The word Sacrosanctus, always conveys the idea of a consecrated inviolability, in consequence of inherent rights and privileges. In a dictionary, contemporary with the charter, I find the following definition,—in verbo sacrosanctus.

"Sacrosanctus: Apud Ciceronem dicebatur id quod interposito jurejurando sanctum, et institutum erat idem etiam significat ac sanctus, santo. Tribunus plebis dicebatur sacrosanctus, quia eum nefas erat attingere, longÈ diviniori ratione Catholici appellamus ecclesiam Romanam sacrosanctam. Calpinus Parvus;—seu Dictionarium CÆsaris Calderini Mirani: Venetiis, 1618.

Cicero, in Catil: 2. 8.—uses the phrase—"Possessiones sacrosanctÆ," in this sense; and so does Livy in the epithet,—"Sacrosancta potestas," as applied to the Tribuneship; and, in the sentence,—"ut plebi sui magistratus essent sacrosanctÆ."

From the last sentence, in the definition given in the Venetian Dictionary of 1618, which I have cited in italics, it will be seen that the epithet had a peculiarly Catholic signification in its appropriation by the Roman Church.

3d, I contend that "sacrosancta" does not qualify "religio," but agrees with negotia, or some word of similar import, understood; and thus the phrase—"sacrosancta Dei"—forms a distinct branch of the sentence.

If the translation given in Bacon is the true one, the positions of the words "sacrosancta" and "Dei" should be reversed, for their present collocation clearly violates accurate Latin construction. In that case, "Dei" being subject to the government of "religio," ought to precede "sacrosancta," which would be appurtenant to "religio," while "et," which would then couple the two adjectives instead of the two members of the sentence, should be placed immediately between them, without the interposition of any word to disunite it either from "sacrosancta" or "vera." If my translation be correct, then the collocation of all the words in the original Latin of the charter, is proper. If "sacrosancta" is a neuter adjective agreeing with "negotia," understood,—and "et" conjoins members of sentences, then the whole clause is obedient to a positive law of Latin verbal arrangement. Leverett says: "The genitive is elegantly put before the noun which governs it with one or more words between; except when the genitive is governed by a neuter adjective, in which case, it must be placed after it."

4th, Again:—if "et" joins "sacrosancta" and "vera," which, thereby, qualify the same noun, there are then only two nominatives in the Latin sentence of the charter, viz: "religio" and "ligcantia." Now these nouns, being coupled by the disjunctive conjunction "aut," must have the verb agreeing with them separately in the singular. But, as "patiantur" happens to be in the plural, the author of the charter must either have been ignorant of one of the simplest grammar rules, or have designed to convey the meaning I contend for.

I must acknowledge the aid and confirmation I have received, in examining this matter, from the very competent scholarship of my friend Mr. Knott, assistant Librarian of the Maryland Historical Society.