This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
438
History of the Nonjurors.

The Act of Comprehension, which must be regarded as the act of his Majesty and his advisers, and not that of the Presbyterians, except so far as it was sanctioned unwillingly by as many of that body as had seats in Parliament, is actually adduced as a specimen of Presbyterian moderation. By this Act, which was passed in July 1695, all Episcopal clergymen, who had not been deprived, neither had yet qualified themselves, were allowed until September in that year to come in and take the Oath of Allegiance, and to subscribe the Assurance.[1]

By the Comprehension, they were permitted to retain their benefices, though not to have any share in the government of the Church: but as the Oath and the Assurance were imposed as conditions, few only accepted of the terms. It is said by Presbyterians that they were dissuaded from compliance by certain noblemen.[2] Some, however, complied after-


    proves that the Presbyterian authorities ruled with an iron hand in Scotland. They would have no discussions, even imitating on this, as on many other occasions, the conduct of the Church of Rome. Keith, 520.

  1. They were to continue in their benefices "under the King's protection without being subject to the power of Presbytery. This was carried with some address before the Presbyterians were aware of the consequences of it: for it was plainly that which they called Erastianism. By a zealous and dexterous management about seventy of the best of them were brought to take the Oaths." Tindal, i. 286. "It appears by this Act," says a Presbyterian, "that some of them had been about six years in possession of their benefices, without taking the Oaths to the King and Queen, though there were express laws for dispossessing such as refused the said Oaths: and about three hundred and fifteen were turned out in 1689 and 1690 by the Committee of Estates and the Privy Council, as may be seen by the Journals." Account of Parliament, 82. The outed Clergy, as they were termed, or the Nonjurors, were not permitted to baptize, or to solemnize marriages.
  2. Ibid. p. 88.