We may here take notice of an attempt to deprive Roger Williams and his colony of their just praise, by claiming for Lord Baltimore the priority in establishing religious liberty in Maryland. We would not detract from the merit of Lord Baltimore and his colony; but the liberty established in Maryland, though far beyond the spirit of those times, did not rise to the Rhode-Island standard. It extended only to Christians.[378] Lord Baltimore commenced his settlement in 1634, and established Christianity, agreeably to the old common law, without allowing pre-eminence to any particular sect. This was wise and liberal; but Mr. Williams established his colony in 1636, two years afterwards, on the broad principle of unlimited religious freedom; and the Jew, the Mahometan or the Hindoo might have found a home in Rhode-Island, and might have enjoyed his opinions unmolested, while he fulfilled his civil duties. The first law of Maryland, respecting religious liberty, was enacted in 1649. In 1647, at the first General Assembly held in Rhode-Island, under the first charter, a code of laws was adopted, relating exclusively to civil concerns, and concluding with these words: “Otherwise than thus, what is herein forbidden, _all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God. And let the lambs of the Most High walk in this colony without molestation, in the name of Jehovah their God, forever and ever._”[379] This noble provision was a part of the code; and it was not only prior in date to the law of Maryland, but it was more liberal, and more consistent with the rights of conscience.