supporters took it, on the alleged ground, that it recognized a distinction between a sovereign De facto and De jure. They imagined, that they might swear allegiance to the Prince in possession, though they considered the right to the throne to be in another.[1] But the Nonjurors scorned to pursue any course which was not direct and open. They were too conscientious to utter one thing with their lips, while they believed the contrary: or to take the Oath with mental reservation.
The views of the various parties, who took the Oath, are well stated in the following extracts: "Now it was observed by him, that in those who qualified themselves for having preferment, by taking the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, the disagreement was most considerable as to the principles on which they proceeded herein. For some took the Oath as lawful, yet did blame the imposition of it as hurtful. Others did esteem the lawfulness of it not as certain, but only as probable; and hence did not condemn the refusers of it. Others again did esteem it in some sense lawful, but again in another sense unlawful. Some of these took it with a declaration, expressing the sense wherein they could take it, and wherein not: others took it without any open declaration, or explicit interpretation: but with an implicit relaxation of the same, or limitation hereof so far as they were not antecedently bound, or as might be consistent with the laws of the realm and the rights both of Prince and people. Some also there were, and those not a few, who being not able to see through the argument, did after
- ↑ Dalrymple, i. 304, 305. Mason's Vindication, by Lindsay. Preface lxxxiii.
