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 Ld. 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 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.