QUERIES RELATEING to the present state of England.  
I. SINCE every person that takes the oath of allegiance, declares; that he believes, and is resolved in his Conscience, that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever can absolve him of that oath: Quaere, whether Conventions and even Parliaments are not comprised under those words, any other person whatsoever.  
II. All persons that take it, declare that they detest and abjure as impious and Haereticall this damnable doctrine and position, That Princes, which be excommunicated or the prived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other person whatsoever, Since it is not to be imagined that the Pope will excommunicate or deprive any Princes but such as are contrary to his religion and the interests of it. Quaere whether it be a doctrine less Impious, less Haereticall, or less damnable to vest that power in the People which is justly denied to the Pope, that they may deprive or depose any Prince that is of a different Religion from theirs, whenever they shall fancy that the interests of their Religion may miscarry in his hands. Or to say the same thing in other words.  
III. Whether it was not a strange confidence in Doctor Burnet in his sermon preached 23. Decem. before the Prince of Orange, after he had with a just indignation, asked, whether zeal for Holy Church could wartant breach of faith? yet in the very same discourse, to magnify the rebellion of the People and the desertion of the Army, as the Lords Doing, and one of the wonders of his Love and Mercy: though it was a complication of as much treason, perjury and breach of faith, as ever was acted in the world: and Expressly acknowledged by those that were Guilty of it that it would be so in any other case but Zeal for their Religion.  
iv Since in all Parliaments as the Interest of the People is sufficiently secured by their free Election of their representatives, so the interest of the Crown is likewise secured in that all men are disabled to sit or act in either of the Houses till they have qualified themselves by taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; if the last of these qualifications be not observed as well as the first in any Convention or pretended Parliament that shall be called without the King's Authority. Quaere, whether all their proceed may not justly be esteemed as partial, as their very being and Constitution is illegal, by all indifferent persons.  
V Quaere, whether allegiance be local, or that it may cease as soon as a king is out of his Dominions? For, since a subject beyond the seas may commit treason against the King being in England: why the subjects in England may not commit treason against the King when he is beyond the seas, will be a hard strain to make the difference. But this hath been solemnly adjudged by all the Judges of England in the Case of Sir H. Vane, who was Indicted, condemned and executed for High treason committed against King Charles the second at a time when he was in France for the same reason that the King is there now, and had no body then in Commission to act for him or by his authority in England.  
VI If a Kings going out of England (even though there had been no force) were a forfeiture of his Crown; Quaere whether, not only all our Kings in their Expeditions into the holy Land, France, etc. but the Emperor, who in Henry the eights time, or the King of Denmark who in the Reign of King James the first came into England, only, for aught appears, to make visits; or for their pleasure; or at best to transact affairs that might have been done by their ministers; whether by this they were thought to have forfeited their Crowns by their Subjects or any body else?  
VII. Since any force upon the meanest subject makes it impossible for him to bar himself or part with any right of his, so long as he continues under that force; Quaere whether a King not only overpowerd but imprisoned by a foreign army can lose or forfeit any thing by using his utmost endeavours to regain his liberty and by continuing in a place of safety till such force is removed?  
VIII. Whether that Statute that indemnifies all such as shall fight for a King de facto though he be not a King de Jure, which was only intended to quiet men's minds in case of a doubtful title as often happened in the intricate pedigree between the Houses of Lancaster and York, can ever be applied to one that usurps the Crown upon a King whose title is so clear and so universally acknowledged.  
IX. Since ignorance of the Law excuses no man, whether all those that shall run into Rebellion, hoping for indemnity by that Statute, and shall afterwards come to be executed for it, may not justly lay their blood at the door of those, who have misled them by disguising the la with such absurd and malicious interpretations.  
X. Whether an English or a foreign Army be the fit instrument to set up Arbitrary power in England; or whether a Lawful King, who can have no temptation to it, or an usurper, who can never be safe without it, be the likelier person to enslave the nation.  
XI. Whether persons that are to be proceeded against in Parliament were ever heretofore committed prisoners before the Parliament fate.  
XII. This being now done by the Prince of Orange, whether it be not ane evident sign that whenever he shall get any assembly of men together that he shall think fit to style a Parliament, he resolves they shall be such as shall fall upon any persons or do any thing that he shall think fit to chalk out to them.  
XIII. Whether the whole Course of his life abroad in the destruction of the liberty of those Provinces with whose protection he was entrusted, Or his many violent and illegal actions since his Landing, do give the more certain warning to every English man of that oppression and Tyranny they must  under during his usurpation.  
XIV. If the Prince of Orange find any person honest enough to oppose his unjust dessigns whether of destroying or enslaving the People and that he finds no way by la to remove such persons: Quaere if he will not let lose the People upon them as he did upon the De Wits in Holland and Roman Catholics in England?  
XV. Since the Prince of Orange has shown that his oath, though never so solemnly given, is not to be regarded; as it appears by his having sworn solemnly to the States general of the United Provinces upon his admission to the office of their General, that he never should ask, or though offered accept of the office of State-Holder, and yet both asked and is in actual possession of the same: Quaere what security he can give that he will not treat England if they make him their master as he has done Holland who made him their servant?