whether such an oath may not lawfully be taken, notwithstanding any former oath?"[1] He also enters upon the question relative to a king De facto, and De jure: "A King De facto is one who comes in by consent of the nation, but not by virtue of an immediate hereditary right: but to such a one, being owned and received by the estates of the realm, the law of England, as far as I can see, requires an allegiance. Or else the whole nation was perjured in most of the reigns from the conquest till Henry VIII."[2]
These extracts contain a full and explicit statement of the views of those, who regarded the Oaths as lawful, as well as of the principles, on which the Revolution was founded. These considerations satisfied most of those, who took the Oaths at that time, and they are quite sufficient for ordinary circumstances. There were still many difficulties: and though I regret the course pursued by the Nonjurors, yet I cannot condemn them in their refusal, because it is clear, that they acted according to their consciences.
A reply was very soon published to Stillingfleet's work by Grascome. Stillingfleet's positions are combated with much skill. He enters into the question of the Oaths, and the deprivations consequent upon their enforcement. The time fixed by the Act had not yet arrived, so that the Bishops and Clergy were not actually deprived; but they refused to take the Oaths. Grascome does not, as it appears to me, sufficiently distinguish between an actual deprivation from office and the taking away the jurisdiction of a
