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 of the clergy, as their example influenced the kingdom in general, and the youth of the nation were formed under their instructions.

After a long and warm debate, all the mitigation that could be obtained was a clause empowering the king to indulge any twelve clergymen, deprived by virtue of this act, with a third part of their benefices during pleasure.
Thus the ancient oaths of allegiance and supremacy were abrogated: the declaration of non-resistance in the act of uniformity was repealed: the new oath of allegiance was reduced to its primitive simplicity, and the coronation-oath rendered more explicit.

The clergy were enjoined to take the new oaths before the first day of August, on pain of being suspended from their office for six months, and of entire deprivation, in case they should not take them before the expiration of this term.