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