The Attestation to this Letter by a Conform­able Minister, who was willing to have it communicated for the Edification of the Laity.

So far the honest Clergy man, who it seems is not to be compell'd to a Choice against his Judgment, by the threats or artifice of any Apparitor or Bailiff. Spiritual or Temporal Bum.

[...] 1. Whether the shiling the weight [...]ir of chusing Members to sit in Parliament [ [...] Ma­nual of Skill]▪ suits not better, with the air of a Soldier, than with the gravity of a B [...]?

2. Whether if solliciting for the Choice of Members to sit in Parliament, be part of the Priestly Function, or within the things lawful and honest, in which they [...]Obe­dience, [...] was not great condescention in the B. earnestly to entreat in such[?] humble terms?

3 Whether the Office of a Soll [...]citor, or that of an Informer upon Penal Laws in default of Church-wardens, be the greater Ecclesiastical Dignity or Prom [...]ti [...]n?

4. Whether whoever he was that wrote the Letter to the Clergy▪ he does not lay himself Vid. the case of the L^d. Mohun in Mr. P Miscel. Parl.open to a Complaint in Parliament▪ not only for the [...]ness of his Letter to those who are under him, hardly consistent with that free­dom of Elections which the Law is tender of▪ but for his following the late Observator▪ in dividing Protestants into Parties, and censu [...]i [...]g, as op­posite to the Church-Party, all those of the No­bility and Gentry, and the Body of the Free­holders of Essex, who have for several years look'd upon the Collonel as the fi [...]test person to represent them in Parliament, for his Expe­rience, Prudence, Courage, and unshaken Fidelity to his Countrey, and to the Crown too, where it has not carried on a Separate Interest?

5. If by the Church-Party is not meant a Fa­ction engaged in an Interest divided from the Protestant Interest at home and abroad, why is not the present Lord Lieut▪ the E. of Oxford, who is for the Collonel, as well to be thought of the Church-Party, as the D. of Albemarl was, except that He cannot drink so much for it as the Other did? And why should not the Cir­cular Letters now press the Clergy to be for them whom the now Ld. Lieut, and the Gentry with him, think fittest to serve their Country, as for­merly, by an implicit Faith, without knowledg of the Persons, they did for such as the then Ld. Lieut. and his Gentry should recommend?

6. Whether the bustle now made by them who call themselves the Church-Party, does not naturally revive the memory of a Great Man's Ministry▪ when Money was receiv'd from France for a Peace, advantageous only to the Factors, and them that bought it, though at the same time the Parliament had paid much more largely for actual War: aud when the [Page] Popish Plot was stifled, and they who enquir'd too far into it, were made Plotters them­selves?

7. Whether the effect of a like Circular Let­ter, in the beginning of the late King's Reign, when the Collonel was set aside (how fairly is not now to be enquir'd into) doth not shew that the Church-Party which then prevail'd, may well be thought of an Interest divided from all other Protestants? Can it otherwise be believ'd, that when they knew that King to be a Papist, they, for the sake of a few good words to the Church, would have trusted him with the Revenue for life, when they had it in their hands, and need not have parted with it, till full provision had been made for the safety of the Religion, and Laws of their Countrey?

8. Whether seeing those who were for the Regency, that is, for having James still King, and this King but a Minister of State, or Gene­ral under him, list themselves with the Church-Party, and the Papists; that Party are not to be thought to be for King James? while the Earl of Oxford, suitable to his Character, and all Coll. Mildmay's Interest, to a man, are for our present King and Queen, that is, for Prote­stancy against Popery, England against France.

9. Whether the B of L. who is personated in this Letter, can be thought to have written it himself, having appear'd in Arms for this King, before the other withdrew, and being past pos­sibility of making his peace with the late King, unless he turn mere Lay-man, and accept of the Regency, and administration of Affairs un­der him in a Lay capacity; being already be­come irregular according to the Doctrine not only of Papists, but of the Church-Party here; who, notwithstanding all his Sollicitations for them, will no more dispense with his Irregula­rity, than they did with good Archbishop Ab­bot's in the time of King Charles the First

10. Whether the Laymen, who are wheed­led into the separate Church-Party, ought not to consider, that if they believe as the Church believes, they are bound to think that not on­ly they who join'd in inviting over our Great Deliverer, and appear'd with or for him in Arms before the late King withdrew, but all who were under that King's Allegiance, and swear to this, are, or have been, neither good Subjects nor good Christians, at least not good Church-of-England-men? for the Church has these Passages, among many others of the like nature, in its Homilies, to which, God be thank­ed, Homilies▪ The six [...]h [...] a­gainst w [...]llful Rebellion, last Edit. f. 383.none but Clergy-men have given any solemn or unfeigned assent and consent.

‘Had English-men at that time known their Duty to their Prince, set forth in God's Holy Word, would English Subject [...] have sent for, and received the Dauphin of France, with a great Army of French men, into the Realm of England? Would they have sworn Fidelity to the Dauphin of France, breaking their Oath of Fidelity to their natural Lord, the King of England? and have stood un­der the Dauphin's Banner Displayed against the King of England?’

This King it must be known, was King John▪ one of the worst of Men, who not only had violated the Original Contract between him and his People; but had voluntarily Abdica­ted, in giving the Kingdom, as much as in him lay, to be held as the Pope's Fee.

And yet you see what the Church holds, of inviting and joyning with a Foreign Prince, even in such a Case.

11. Whether Clergy-men are to be thought ignorant of the Contents of the Homilies? Whether therefore all Lay-men concern'd for the support of this Government, and of the Protestant Religion ought not to be very jea­lous of those for whom they are sollicited by the Clergy? especially considering that their Repre­sentatives, when they were prest by the Bps. to thank His present Majesty for rescuing them from Popery and Slavery, were not for medling with any thing, but what concern'd the Church of England▪ as if its concerns lay another way: And the generality of them were a­gainst all manner of alterations, being, it seems, fond of those passages in the Homilies▪ which condemn all that adhere to this Govern­ment.

12. Whether, tho the Bp. of L's late Action, wherein he forsook his Church-Party is justly popular, yet he, who was advanced in ill times, and complied so far with K. James, as to desire Dr. Sharp to discontinue Preaching; and so far submitted to the High Commission-Court, as not to insist upon a Legal Plea to its Jurisdiction; deserves to be trusted by the Peo­ple of Essex, more than Coll. Mildmay, who stood up for them undauntedly in the worst of Times, to his great Expence and Hazard: and yet behaved himself with such Moderation and Prudence, that the Managers then, so eager to make Plots, could frame no pretence against him?

The Freeholders of Essex have us'd to see for themselves, without Ecclesiastical Spectacles: Nor have they more than once since the Pen­sioner-Parliament, been Hector'd or Wheedled by the Church-Party from their own true In­terest. They cannot but remember what they suffered under their insolencies formerly; nor is it likely that they will again put themselves under that uneasie yoke. They cannot so soon forget the Fines, Imprisonments, and Dancings of Attendance from Sessions to Ses­sions, merely for Voting for such Parliament­men as they could trust. It is not therefore to be thought, that they will contribute to­wards setting that Party again in the Saddle.