694The HISTORY of the PuRITANs. VoL. II. ChK,;ng !I n:eafures to introduce their religion, which was the making way for a po– :~;;. · p1!h fuc~en:or of more refolute principles; and from hence we may date ~..._.r..-._; the begtnnmg of the popi!h plot, which did not break out till 1678, as appears by Mr. Coleman's letters; The bill received the royal a!rent March z5, together with a money bill of one million two hundred thou– fand pounds; and then the parliament was prorogued to OC!ober zo, af– ter a !hart feffion of [even weeks. '!heat/ i~lf. The tdf aC! is entitled, an aC! to prevent dangers which happenfrom po– ::i1t1at. 1 2 5 Ca 2 r. pijh recufcznts. It requires, " that all perfons bearing any office of truft · clop. · fi "- ll k h " or pro t, wa ta e t e oaths of fupremacy and allegiance in open " court, and !hall alfo receive the facrament of the Lord's (upper, ac– " carding to the ufage of the church of England, in fome pari(h church, " on fome Lord's day immediately after divine fervice and fermon, and " deliver a certificate of having fo received the facrament, under the " hands of the refpective miniftersand church-wardens, proved by two " credible witneifes upon oath, and upon record in court. And that all " perfons taking the faid oaths of fupremacy and allegiance ilialllikewife " make and fubfcribe this following declaration, I A. B. do declare, that " 1 belie7ie there is 110 trm!fuijlantiation in the Jacrament qf the Lord's "jitpper, or in the elements qf bread and wine, at, or after the coJ!fecra– " tion thereof; by uny perfon whatfoecc·er. The penalty of breaking thro' " this act, is a difability of fuing in any court of law, or equity, being " guardian of any child, executor or adminiftrator to any perfon, or of " taking any legacy, or deed of gift, or of bearing any public office; " befides a fine of five hundred pounds." Remarks. Mr. Eacbard obferves well, that this act was principally, if not folely levelled at the roman catholics, as appears from the title; and this is further evident from the difpofition of the houfe of commons at this time, to eafe the proteftant dilrenters of fame of their burdens. lf the difienters had fallen in with the court meafures, they might have prevent– ed the bill's palling. But they left their own liberties in a fiate of uncer– tainty, to fecure thofe of the nation. However though the intention was good, the act itfelf is in my opinion very unjufiifiable, becau{e it founds dominion in grace. A man can't be an excife.man, a cufiom-houfe cf. ficer, a lieutenant in the army or navy, no not fo much as a tide-waiter, without putting on the mofl: dirtinguilhing badge of ch:iftianity, accord– ing to the ufage of the church of England. Is not this a ftrong tempta– tion to prophanation and hypocrify? Does it not P.erv:rt one of th.e mofl: folemn infcitutions of religion, to purpofes for which it was never mtend– ed? And is it not eafy to find fecurities of a civil nature, fufiicient for the prefervation both of church and ftate? When t~e act took ~lace the duke f>f York lord high admiral of E11gland; lord Cif/ford lord high treafurer; and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=