his death his Son Edward having less to answer for and success to recommend him to the People upon more specious pretences succeeded H. 6. by a manifest election Tho' he and his Father had upon the agreement established in Parliament sworn to be true to H. 6. during his life or till he should freely quit his Crown the dread of their Arms got a liberty for 'em to enter their protestations that this was upon the express condition that the King performed his part but if he should compass or imagine the death or destruction of the Duke or his Blood should forfeit the Crown And indeed it seems that the first acts of Hostility after this agreement were committed by the Queen and others of the King's Party who in attempting to rescue him out of the custody of the Duke of York put an end to his pretensions with his life But his Son Edward having routed the Earl of Pembroke and other the King 's Loyal Subjects in a Battle near Ludlow march'd up to London where he was received with joy on the 28 th of February Then he calls a Great Council of Peers to whom he opens his claim upon the King's breach of the Articles After the Lords had considered of the matter they determined by Authority of the said Council that forasmuch as King Henry contrary to his Oath Honor and Agreement had violated and infringed the order taken and enacted in the last Parliament and also because he was insufficient to rule the Realms and unprofitable to the Common-wealth he was therefore by the aforesaid Authority deprived and dejected of all Kingly Honor and Regal Sovereignty and incontinent Edward Earl of March was by the Lords in the said Counseil assembled named elected and admitted for King and Governour of the Realm After this the same day the consent of the common People was ask'd in St. John's Fields where a great number were assembled The Lords being informed of the consent of the Commons acquainted the said Earl with their election and admission and the loving assent of the Commons The next day he went to Westminster where his Title and Claim to the Crown was declared 1. As Son and Heir to Richard his Father right Inheriter to the same 2. By Authority of Parliament 3. And forfeiture committed by H. 6. The Commons being again demanded if they would admit and take the said Earl as their Sovereign Lord all with one voice cried yea yea which agreement concluded he was then proclaimed Here it is observable 1. That Edward did not claim upon any Title Prior to the Settlement in Parliament 39 H. 6. and therefore in effect claimed as adopted Heir to H. 6. as H. 2. had been to King Stephen 2. He alledges against H. 6. forfeiture by breach of the Contrac̄t establish'd in Parliament and a Moral incapacity in him to Reign 3. Notwithstanding this he does not set up as King before a solemn judgment pronounced against H. 6. and in favour of him and the formallity of a publick election 4. It appears that tho' he came to London and was possessed of the head and strength of the Kingdom and Hen. 6. had in effect abdicated he who according to the modern notion of the Successionaries should have been King upon the death of his Father was not King nor so reputed by his own Party till all those accustomed ceremonies were over the last of which was on the 4 th of March Now if it shall prove that in the judgment of King Edward's own Parliament his right ot turn H. 6. out of Possession was founded in H. 6 ths breach of the Contract establish'd in Parliament that E. 4. was not King till the 4 th of March and that no Act committed against him before that day was Treason nor was there or could there be Treason against his Father who never had been King then it will appear that some consent or election of the States or People was essentially necessary to make a King even of one who had or at least was suppos'd to have all the right that descent could give him and that the other King must have forfeited or ceased to be King before such right could be duely claimed But 1. The Act of Parliament declaring E. 4 ths Title is held to be a restitution to the same so that the very Title or Right was as if it had been extinguished 2. It is in that Act particularly insisted on that H. 6. had declared before witness that he would not keep the contract established in Parliament and is expresly charged with the breach of it 3. E. 4. is adjudged to have been in lawful Possession of the Realm upon the 4 th of March and on that day lawfully seized and possessed But not before and then the exercice of the Royal Estate by E. 4. and amotion of H. 6. are declared rightwise lawful and according to the Laws and Customs of the Realm 4. That Act says the Crown ought to have descended to Edward's Ancestor and after his decease to the next Heir of Blood if the same Usurpation had not been committed Wherefore according to that Act the Crown did not descend to any one of Mortimer's Family while the Person who they supposed to have usurped the Crown or any descendant from him kept Possession 5. Edward's Parliament held his Father to have been no more than Duke of York and tho' in the Act attainting H. 6. he is charged with the Murder of Richard Duke of York the first Treasonable Fact in H. 6. and others is laid in levying War on the 29 th of March and imagining to depose their Sovereign Lord Edward who had been declared King on the 4 th of that March and H. 6 ths forfeiture is laid in acting against his Faith and Allegiance to his Sovereign Lord whereby they plainly shew that as there could be no Treason against the Duke of York because he was never received for Sovereign Lord neither could there have been any against E. 4. unless he had been so received 6. If any now will own his present Majesty to have right by Law and yet refuse to declare him rightful King They go no farther then E. 4. and his Party did even after his Possession in relation to such as they held to be Usurpers And should such Men add that neither has the late King any right as it is probable that they mean that he has no right making him King they therein would still keep to that President But then if they would exactly follow that they must believe that the late King cannot be duely restored to the Regal Dignity till he should be received by the election or consent of the States or Body of the People nor could that be rightfully done unless his present Majesty in a legal sense ceased to be King before such election or consent Thus far I am sure they cannot
REFLECTIONS UPON A Treasonable Opinion Industriously promoted Against SIGNING the National Association AND The Entring into it prov'd to be the Duty of all the Subjects of this KINGDOM Hoc quidem perspicuum est eos ad imperandum deligi solitos quorum de justitiâ magna esset opinio multitudinis adjuncto verò ut iidem etiam prudentes haberentur nihil erat quod homines his auctoribus non posse consequi se arbitrarentur Civ de of lib. 2. LONDON Printed and Sold by E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall 1696. To His Excellency CHARLES Duke of SHREWSBURY one of the Lords Justices of England and one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State c. May it please your Excellency SINCE among the many subjects of just Praise which make up Excellency's distinction it is not the least that the true Religion and Loyalty are known to have been chosen with a Judgment properly your own my ambition could not carry me to a fitter Patron for Truths which are to encounter a strong Pre-possession in Men taught to object novelty against this Revolution tho' with as little cause of triumph as the Papists have for their question where was the Protestant Church before Luther As your Excellency's wise and vigorous discharge of Offices of the highest Trust and Consequence under our only rightful Sovereign King WILLIAM revives to France the noted Terrors in the name of Talbot permit me from thence to take an Omen of Success against Arguments supported by the French Interest and Power more than by any colour of reason Yet they who oppose the Right of the present Government having pretended to seeming Authorities I have used that method which I hope may be proper for their conviction giving a short view of what upon the various Exigencies of the Publick in all Ages of this Monarchy has been the uniform Judgment and regular Practice of Conventions of the States and Parliaments of this Kingdom in concurrence with several glorious Preservers of the English Liberties But that I may use an Authority sufficient in it self to justifie our present Settlement I beg leave to appeal to Excellency's early and eminent Example which will weigh more with Persons acquainted with so illustrious a Character than any Argument from pass'd Times And yet what I here offer being for the most part the Result of the Collective Wisdom of the Nation may not be wholly undeserving of your Excellency's Patrondge nor can I apprehend that you will refuse these Fundamental Truths the benefit of being recommended to the World under so Great a Name which tho' it will set my faults in the clearer light if your Excellency shall be thought to bear with 'em cannot but moderate the Censures against Your Excellency's most devoted humble Servant W. Atwood REFLECTIONS UPON A Treasonable Opinion c. THE Enemies of the Peace of these Realms having handed about a Paper as the Opinion of a certain florid Gentleman of the long Robe eminent for making New Treasons and whose Authority is said to have prevailed with several to refuse Signing the Associatlon for the defence of His Majesty's Sacred Person and Rightful Authority I shall offer what I conceive a sufficient Antidote to the Poyson he would spread with all his affected softness The words of the Opinion as they have occurr'd to me are these By the Statute of Hen. 7. the Subjects are Indemnified in taking an Oath or Fighting for a King de Facto But the Association is not within the Statute but an Overt Act of Treason against the King de Jure and Punishable as such when he shall be restored In refuteing the pernicious Errors contained in this Opinion I shall evince First That according to the best Authorities of them who suppose that there may be a King de Jure as distinguished from a King in Fact the Right of the supposed King de Jure is not such as makes any Act against him to be Treason nor is he King or has any Right against the King in Possession or his Issue Secondly That an Association for the Defence of the King's Person and Right is within the purview of the Stat. 11 H. 7. and that as plainly as an Oath of Allegianee Thirdly That it is not supposed or implyed in that Act that there was or might be a King de Jure while an other was King in Fact but that according to that Act the King for the time being is the onely Rightful King Fourthly That the Statute 11 H. 7. is not introductory of any new Law in this matter Fifthly That his Present Majesty is the only King de Jure and that the late King neither is nor of Right ought to be King Sixthly That according to this Gentleman 's own Law he is Guilty of High-Treason against our Sovereign Lord the King 1. The Lord Coke upon the Statute of Treason 25 E. 3. referring in the Margin to the Statute 11 H. 7. says This is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom For if there be a King Regnant in Possession altho' he be Rex de Facto and not de Jure yet he is Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute and the other who hath the Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act. Sir Mathew Hale says what in substance agrees with the Lord Coke A King says he speaking of the Statute 25 E. 3. de Facto and not de Jure is a King withing that Act and Treason against him is punishable tho' the right Heir get the Crown Indeed both those Great Men seem to suppose or admit that there might be one who had or at some time or other might have a sort of Right notwithstanding another's being so fully King that a Conspiracy to Kill or Depose him would be Treason But it is to be consider'd 1. That the Lord Coke does not suppose that there may be a King de Jure while another is King in Fact unless this supposition is warranted by the Statute 11 H. 7. which as I shall prove it is not 2. The Statute which in both their Judgments regards only the King Regnant makes it Treason to Conspire the Death of the King 's Eldest Son or to violate his Eldest Daughter for the last of which the Lord Coke assigns this Reason That for default of Issue Male she only is Inheritable to the Crown So that the supposed King de Jure appears to be barred not only by the Possession of the King in Fact but even by that Right which is Vested in his Son or Daughter before either of them have Possession And indeed That Right which ordinarily would descend to the Eldest Son of the King Regnant is truly explanatory of all that will be found to have belonged to one who since E. 4. of the elder branch of the Royal Stock got Possession has often been call'd King de Jure tho' as will appear in
and true Allegiance to King William will be wiser than the Law not only declared by this Act of Parliament but by several in former Reigns and with a gross Jesuitical evasion without any colour of foundation in Law or Reason pretend that they have sworn to K. William only as King in Fact but that another was rightful King at the same time This groundless and wicked distinction appears to have engaged some Men in an horrid and barbarous Plot against his Majesty's Person and Government tho' they had sworn to be true and faithful to him and it seems by the case of Sir John Perkins that neither he nor his Casuists thought the Oath to King William any departure from the Allegiance to King James nor the design of Assassinating King William any breach of the Oath to him Since therefore the deceit has taken rise from the supposition that the late King continues King of Right together with the general terms of the Oath which are pretended to leave a latitude for this illegal and nonsensical supposition and an Oath more explicit has been artfully kept off a voluntary Declaration that his present Majesty King William is Rightful and Lawful King of these Realms as it is fully warranted by the fundamental constitution of this Government is at this time become a necessary duty when it is evident to the World what they who are of a contrary Opinion will act as they have opportunity But to engage to stand by and assist each other in the defence of His Majesty's Person and Government is not more a consequence of the declaring him rightful and lawful King than it is implied in the Oath of Allegiance appointed by the Act of Parliament which settles the Crown and however the Common-Law Oath and the legal sense of Allegiance manifestly require it If any who have taken the Oath of Allegiance to his present Majesty scruple to associate because of the declaring His Majesty to be rightful and lawful King it is evident that they prevaricated when they swore If they questioned the legality of entring into this before there was a positive Law for it 't is certain they have been little acquainted with the Common-Law Oath of Allegiance and the warrantable Presidents of former times according to which the late Act late Act which enjoyns some to Sign the Association not only gives it Sanction for the future but with express relation to its being voluntarily enter'd into by great numbers of His Majesty's Subjects declares that it is good and lawful And any Man who impartially weighs what I have laid together from Records and other Authentick Memorials of pass'd times must own that it is with full and indubitable Authority enacted That if any person or persons shall maliciously by Writing Printing Preaching Teaching or advised speaking utter publish or declare that His present Majesty is not the lawful and rightful King of these Realms or that the late King James or the pretended Prince of Wales hath any Right or Title to the Crown of these Realms or that any other person or persons hath or have any right or title to the same otherwise than according to an Act of Parliament made in the first year of the Reign of His present Majesty and the late Queen Intituled An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and settling the Succession of the Crown such person or persons being thereof lawfully Convicted shall incur the danger and penalty of Praemunire To imagine that after all this the late King either is or ought to be King is to flight all Authorities Ancient as well as Modern Which leads me to the Nature of our Lawyer 's offence who before the Act for the Security of His Majesty's Person and Government held the Signing the Association to be an overt-Overt-Act of Treason against the King de Jure which as has appeared above tends manifestly to depose and unking His present Majesty as in the Eye of the Law there is but one King and he is the only King de Jure Besides this Gentleman admits That by the Statute 11 H. 7. Allegiance is due to a King in Fact and that the Oath of Allegiance was to be taken to him nor can pretend that there ever till of late was any other Oath but what expresly obliged to the Defence of the King and Kingdom against all Men therefore in consequence of his own Notion he must grant that to contend that there may be Treason against any other but the King for the time being is to suppose two contrary Allegiances and therein to depart from that Allegiance which was due even by his own interpretation of the Statute 11 H. 7. But it being evident that by that Statute and the whole course of the Common Law there is but one King I need not tell him the Crime of publishing a written Opinion manifestly importing an endeavour to Depose him If this had been delivered only in Words it is well known who used his Oratory to make words alone Treason within the Statute 25 E. 3. for which I may refer him to the Trial of the now Earl of Macclesfield in the beginning of the late King's Reign and to the Author of the Magistracy and Government Vindicated But as the Opinion was written he may well know from what late Authority Soribere est agere is become a Maxim or Proverbial Nor can he deny the Words to be within the reason of what the Court held in Flower 's Case of a Man's affirming the King to be a Bastard or that another had better Tittle to the Crown because it may draw the Subjects from their Allegiance and beget Mutiny in the Realm or Owen's Case of declaring it Lawful to kill the King being Excommunicated by the Pope both which not to mention more of the like kind were adjudged High-Treason According to the Print of the later Case it would seem that Words alone made the Treason ' but it appears by a MS. Report of one who had been Attorney General and afterwards Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas that Owen's Subscribing his Confession of what he had publickly declared was given in Evidence as the overt-Overt-Act But if any Lawyer who has labour'd to make Treason of Words alone or Writing alone without Publication or Signing an Association to defend the King for the time being against one who had been King but is not should appear not only to have Written or Signed the Opinion above after a Discourse shewing to what Persons it related but to have publish'd this and to have Solicited Men not to Subscribe the Association upon those or the like topicks should he be Convicted of High-Treason against our Sovereign Lord the King it would be difficult not to apply that of the Poet Nec lex est justior ulla Quam necis artifices arte perire suâ None can the Justice of that Law deny By which who strain'd it against others dye FINIS The
a sence very different from the Modern vulgar Notion Nor does the Judgment even of E. the 4th's own Parliament in the least favour the late King however if it did later Parliaments in the time of H. 7. have taken away all colour from such pretences That the Eldest Son even of the most Rightful Regnant King was not King upon the Death of his Father without a Parliamentary Settlement of the Crown upon him before his Fathers Death nor with it till the States of the Kingdom had actually received and recognized such Son will appear beyond contradiction And that the Eldest Son 's Right was only a Right to be declared King unless he was unfit to Reign or the exigencies of the Publick required the advancing some other Person of the Royal Family If a deserving Person was kept back or one so judged by his own Party or the Nation when he prevailed the least Complement they could make him was that of Right he ought to have been King before he was King but farther they never extended their Transports of Loyalty nor ever Authoritatively declared That he had such a Right as made him King while another possessed the Throne And till he got Possession it was never declared that he had Right Nor does the setting one aside before his coming to Possession or after make any difference in the Nature of the Right in question And I shall put it beyond Controversie that whenever a worthy Person of the Saxon Royal Family especially of that branch which for some Successions had been settled as the Regnant Family was solemnly recognized by the States of the Kingdom upon the Death or disability of a Person who stood forwarder in the Royal Line the Person so recognized became King de Jure and no other Person had any manner of Right unless such as was in Abeiance or in the Clouds and indeed no where till Possession brought it to Light and Being 3. Fully to shew this Gentleman his mistakes upon the Statute 11 H. 7. it will be requisite to transcribe the whole which is as follows The King our Sovereign Lord calling to remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm and that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the Defence of him and the Land against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him and with him to enter and abide in Service in Battle if case so require That for the same Service what Fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his Commandment within this Land or without any thing should leese or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance It be therefore Ordained Enacted and Established by the King our Sovereign Lord by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by the Authority of the same That from henceforth no manner of Person or Persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this Land for the time being in his Person and do him true and faithful Service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his Commandment in the Wars within this Land or without that for the said deed and true Duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise Convict or Attaint of High-Treason or of other Offences for that Cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Proces of Law whereby he or any of them shall now forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chatals or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any Vexation Trouble or Loss And if any Act or Acts or other Proces of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Proces of Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void Provided always that no Person or Persons shall take any Benefit or Advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Here 't is observable 1st That whereas this Gentleman absurdly supposes that it is Treason to engage to fight against one whom one may lawfully kill and that one may enter into a contrary Allegiance but may not do any voluntary act of Allegiance it is evident by the Words that if Swearing Allegiance is safe so are all voluntary Acts of Allegiance for the Swearing is not expresly provided for by that Act or any otherwise than as it is a part of the Duty and Service of Allegiance to the Sovereign Lordâ— but if Associating for the Defence of the King's Person and Right be part of the Allegiance due then that is as much provided for as the Oath is and consequently this Gentleman must grant that the Statute 11 H. 7. indemnifies the present Associators That this is part of the Allegiance due appears by the Common-Law Oath of Allegiance affirmed in the Laws of W. 1. and continued down to this day in Substance and Obligation according to which all the Freemen of the whole Kingdom are to affirm with a League or Association and Oath that within and without the whole Kingdom of England they will be faithful to their Lord the King preserve his Lands and Honors with all fidelity together with his Person and defend them against Enemies and Strangers And in an other Chapter of that Law after Provision that all Freemen shall enjoy their Estates as had been before enacted and granted in a Common-Council of the whole Kingdom it adds We also enact and firmly enjoyn that all Freemen of the whole Kingdom be sworn Brethren or Associators to defend our Monarchy and our Kingdom according to their Strength and Faculties and manfully keep the Peace and preserve the Dignity of our Crown entire and constantly to maintain Right and just Judgment by all means according to their power without fraud and without delay What is this but an Association to defend the King and Kingdom against any Person whatever and by consequence to declare that the King for the time being is the only Rightful King Since his Person Crown and Dignity is to be preserved by all means in their Power This part of the Common-Law is affirmed by the Statute 11 H. 7. declaring it the Duty of Allegiance to defend the King and Land against every Power and Might and therefore as well against Pretenders to Title as others 2. This Act expresly indemnifies for voluntary Acts of Allegiance against the mind and will of the Prince 3. It can by no means have
a Settlement made in the Ancestor's life time it will not be so where there has been none as was the case of C. 2. 3. If one should in the eye of Law be King immediately upon the death of an other it would not follow that this would be by a strict right of descent but that after the being admitted King there should be a relation backwards to prevent the loss of any rights belonging to the Crown and thus it was plainly taken by the Chief Justices Dyer and Anderson who say that the King who is Heir or Successor may write and begin his Reign the same day that his Progenitor or Predecessor died And agreeably to this it was the resolution of all the Judges of the King's Bench in Elizabeth's time that a saving to a King and his Heirs shall go to a Successor of the Crown tho' not Heir to that King That J. 2. made too great haste to succeed his Brother C. 2. now at least Men will be apt to believe of whom I shall observe only in short 1. That he was within no Parliamentary Settlement of the Crown then in force 2. The best pretence J. 2. had of coming to the Crown without an immediate election must have been the Settlement 1º H. 7. But no shadow of reason can be assigned why the late Act of Settlement was not as rightful and with as true Authority as that 1º H. 7. 3. J. 2. being reconciled to the Sea of Rome which is High Treason by our Law and for which he had been convicted in his Brother's time if the Indictment had not been arbitrarily defeated was as much disabled from succeeding to the Crown as the Family of George Duke of Clarence by reason of that Duke's attainder 4. Admit the assuming the Royal Dignity had purged the former disability the continuing a Papist was a constant incapacity to be the Head of this Protestant Church and Kingdom rendring it impracticable for him to answer the end for which our Kings had been constituted 5. He was never duely invested with the Royal Dignity not having taken the appointed Coronation-Oath which for his sake was traiterously altered with an omission of the Rights of the People and an unjustifiable Salvo for Prerogative Nor was he ever fully recognized 6. By seizing the Customs and raising Taxes without Authority of Parliament dispensing with the Laws of the Kingdom raising and keeping a standing Army in the time of Peace and the like enormities he violated that constitution which should have made or kept him King and if he ever was King more than Harold the Son of Earl Godwin manifestly ceased to be King before his abdication 7. However it may have been at his first leaving the Kingdom without any other Government than what according to ancient Custom fell upon the States of the Kingdom he having since discovered a settled intention to destroy the People of England or the greater part of 'em by a Foreign Power with their Party here according to those Casuists who are most favourable to such rights as he has claimed from the time at least of his manifesting such intention he ceased to be King and His present Majesty having been regularly declared King the other is totally barred from all claim and colour of pretence How great a noise soever some make for him since his flight after their deseting him the greatest sticklers for his suppos'd rightful Authority being disappointed of their sanguine expectations warmly opposed his exercice of those rights to which their servillity had encouraged him the very Bishops who for his sake have set up for heads under him of a separate Church not only disobeyed his positive commands in matters which at other times at least in things of the like nature they would have contended to belong to his Headship of the Church but they would have limited his Power little less than the 19 Propositions to C. 1. which they had long seem'd to abhor Some of their Party if not themselves joyn'd in solliciting his present Majesty to undertake our Deliverance and a certain Person who would be thought never to have departed from their Principles is said to have gone so far as to sign the invitation tho' upon second thoughts he desired to have his name scratch'd out The Bishops being required to sign an abhorrence of that enterprize absolutely refused it Their Archbishop was one of them who petitioned his present Majesty to take the Government upon him before the late King left England and Non-assistance to their jure Divino King was become as Catholick Doctrine as Non-resistance During this time the designs of the Party were kept secret but the People began to hope well of the Body of the English Clergy believing them by a wonderful providence to be reformed in their Principles of Government with which they had brought a scandal upon the Reformation But the Convention meeting to provide for the Peace and Settlement of the Nation it then appear'd that the mighty Zealots for the Monarchy were only for setting up themselves and in truth would have no Sovereignty but in the Church as they called their Faction for as they would not have his present Majesty to be King but a Regent or Officer for the interim till the late King should come to their terms neither did they truly own him for their King whom they neither would assist as Subjects nor consult in choosing a new Government However the Throne having according to former Presidents and the plain right of the Kingdom been declared vacant upon King's breach of the original contracts and abdication the Lords and Commons reciting many particulars of his misgovernment resolve that William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be declared King and Queen and make a farther Settlement of the Crown They having accepted the Crown the Lords and Commons together with the Mayor and Citizens of London and others of the Commons of this Realm with full consent publish and proclaim William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange to be King and Queen of England France and Ireland and in the Proclamation own a miraculous deliverance from Popery and Arbitrary Power and that our preservation is due next under God to the resolution and conduct of His Highness the Prince of Orange whom God hath chosen to be the Glorious Instrument of an inestimable Happiness to us and our Posterity A Parliament called soon after declares and enacts that they do recognize and acknowledge that Their Majesties are and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm their Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England c. in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State Crown and Dignity of the said Realms with all Honours Prerogatives c. are fully rightfully and entirely Invested Incorporated United and Annexed Notwithstanding which many who have sworn to bear Faith