106

HISTOitY OF ENGLAND.

CnAP.

XI.

1689 .

to give no guarantee to the state? On what principle can it hecontended that it is unnecessary to ask from an Archbishop ofCanterbury or from a Bishop of Durham that promise of fidelityto the government which all allow that it is necessary to demandfrom every layman who serves the Crown in the humblest office.Every exciseman, every collector of the customs, who refusesto swear, is to be deprived of his bread. For these humblemartyrs of passive obedience and hereditary right nobody hasa word to say. Yet an ecclesiastical magnate who refuses toswear is to be suffered to retain emoluments, patronage, pow'er,equal to those of a great minister of state. It is said that it issuperfluous to impose the oaths on a clergyman, because hemay be punished if he breaks the laws. Why is not the sameargument urged in favour of the layman? And why, if theclergyman really means to observe the laws, does he scruple totake the oaths ? The law commands him to designate Williamand Mary as King and Queen, to do this in the most sacredplace, to do this in the administration of the most solemn ofall the rites of religion. The law commands him to pray thatthe illustrious pair may be defended by a special providence,that they may be victorious over every enemy, and that theirParliament may by divine guidance be led to take such a courseas may promote their safety, honour, and welfare. Can webelieve that his conscience will suffer him to do all this, and yetwill not suffer him to promise that he will be a faithful subjectto them?

To the proposition that the nonjuring clergy should be leftto the mercy of the King, the Whigs, with some justice, re-plied that no scheme could be devised more unjust to hisMajesty. The matter, they said, is one of public concern, onein lvhieh every Englishman who is unwilling to be the slave ofFrance and of Home has a deep interest. In such a case itwould be unworthy of the Estates of the Realm to shrink from