William was naturally biassed to Calvinism, and averse to persecution. Whatever promises he had made, and whatever sentiments of respect he had entertained for the church of England, he seemed now in a great measure alienated from it by the opposition he had met with from its members, particularly from the bishops who had thwarted his measures. By absenting themselves from parliament, and refusing the oath, they had plainly disowned his title and renounced his government. He therefore resolved to mortify the church, and gratify his own friends at the same time, by removing the obstacles affixed to nonconformity, that all protestant dissenters should be rendered capable of enjoying and exercising civil employments. When he gave his assent to the bill for suspending the habeas-corpus act, he recommended the establishment of a new oath in lieu of those of allegiance and supremacy: he expressed his hope that they would leave room for the admission of all his protestant subjects who should be found qualified for the service; he said, such a conjunction would unite them the more firmly among themselves, and strengthen them against their common adversaries. In consequence of this hint, a clause was inserted in the bill for abrogating the old and appointing the new oaths, by which the sacramental test was declared unnecessary in rendering any person capable of enjoying any office or employment. It was, however, rejected by a great majority in the house of lords. Another clause for the same purpose, though in different terms, was proposed by the king’s direction, and met with the same fate, though in both cases several noblemen entered a protest against the resolution of the house. These fruitless efforts in favour of dissenters augmented the prejudice of the churchmen against king William, who would have willingly compromised the difference by excusing the clergy from the oaths, provided the dissenters might be exempted from the sacramental test: but this was deemed the chief bulwark of the church, and therefore the proposal was rejected. The church party in the house of lords moved, That instead of inserting a clause obliging the clergy to take the oaths, the king should be empowered to tender them; and, in case of their refusal, they should incur the penalty, because deprivation, or the apprehensions of it, might make them desperate and excite them to form designs against the government. This argument had no weight with the commons, who thought it was indispensably necessary to exact the oaths of the clergy, as their example influenced the kingdom in general, and the youth of the nation were formed under their instructions. After a long and warm debate, all the mitigation that could be obtained was a clause empowering the king to indulge any twelve clergymen, deprived by virtue of this act, with a third part of their benefices during pleasure. Thus the ancient oaths of allegiance and supremacy were abrogated: the declaration of non-resistance in the act of uniformity was repealed: the new oath of allegiance was reduced to its primitive simplicity, and the coronation-oath rendered more explicit. The clergy were enjoined to take the new oaths before the first day of August, on pain of being suspended from their office for six months, and of entire deprivation, in case they should not take them before the expiration of this term. They generally complied, though with such reservations and distinctions as were not much for the honour of their sincerity.
ACT FOR A TOLERATION.
The king, though baffled in his design against the sacramental test, resolved to indulge the dissenters with a toleration; and a bill for this purpose being prepared by the earl of Nottingham, was, after some debate, passed into a law, under the title of an act for exempting their majesties’ protestant subjects, dissenting from the church of England, from the penalties of certain laws. It enacted, That none of the penal laws should be construed to extend to those dissenters who should take the oaths to the present government, and subscribe the declaration of the thirtieth year of the reign of Charles II. provided that they should hold no private assemblies or conventicles with the doors shut; that nothing should be construed to exempt them from the payment of tithes or other parochial duties: that, in case of being chosen into the office of constable, churchwarden, overseer, &c. and of scrupling to take the oaths annexed to such offices, they should be allowed to execute the employment by deputy: that the preachers and teachers in congregations of dissenting protestants who should take the oaths, subscribe the declaration, together with all the articles of religion, except the thirty-fourth and the two succeeding articles, and part of the twentieth, should be exempted from the penalties decreed against non-conformists, as well as from serving upon juries, or acting in parish offices: yet all justices of the peace were empowered to require such dissenters to subscribe the declaration and take the oaths; and, in case of refusal, to commit them to prison without bail or mainprize. The same indulgence was extended to anabaptists, and even to quakers, on their solemn promise before God to be faithful to the king and queen, and their assenting by profession and asseveration to those articles which the others ratified upon oath: they were likewise required to profess their belief in the Trinity and the Holy Scriptures. Even the papists felt the benign influence of William’s moderation in spiritual matters: he rejected the proposal of some zealots, who exhorted him to enact severe laws against popish recusants. Such a measure, he observed, would alienate all the papists of Europe from the interests of England, and might produce a new Catholic league which would render the war a religious quarrel; besides, he would not pretend to screen the protestants of Germany and Hungary, while he himself should persecute the Catholics of England. He therefore resolved to treat them with lenity; and though they were not comprehended in the act, they enjoyed the benefit of the toleration.
WILLIAM AND MARY, 1688—1701.
VIOLENT DISPUTES ABOUT THE BILL FOR A COMPREHENSION.
We have observed that, in consequence of the motion made by the bishops when they withdrew from parliament, a bill was brought into the house of lords for uniting their majesties’ protestant subjects. This was extremely agreeable to the king, who had the scheme of comprehension very much at heart. In the progress of the bill a warm debate arose about the posture of kneeling at the sacrament, which was given up in favour of the dissenters. Another no less violent ensued upon the subsequent question, “Whether there should be an addition of laity in the commission to be given by the king to the bishops and others of the clergy, for preparing such a reformation of ecclesiastical affairs as might be the means of healing divisions, and correcting whatever might be erroneous or defective in the constitution.” A great number of the temporal lords insisted warmly on this addition, and when it was rejected four peers entered a formal protest. Bishop Burnet was a warm stickler for the exclusion of the laity; and, in all probability, manifested this warmth in hopes of ingratiating himself with his brethren, among whom his character was very far from being popular. But the merit of this sacrifice was destroyed by the arguments he had used for dispensing with the posture of kneeling at the sacrament; and by his proposing in another proviso of the bill, that the subscribers, instead of expressing assent or consent, should only submit with a promise of conformity.