THe News here for present is of great Concern­ment: which I have sent in brief viz. HIs Ma­jesty concurs to the Propositions concerning Delin­quents, with these alterations, that those in the first and 2 qualification may have life, and be in the Capacity of the 4. qualification. And that their incapability of Offices be for a time. And of b [...]ing Members of Parl. to be for 3. years.

His Maj. hath offered Propositions to the Commissioners severall times, but being not received. The King sent this Message to the Parl. 1. That his Maj. may come to London, and have the faith of his 2. Houses for his security to be there in safty, freedom, & honour. 2. That an Act (or Acts) may be passed for a full Indemp­nity, and of oblivion, with such qualifications as shall be agreed on by his Majesty & his 2. Houses of Parl. 3. That his Maj. may have his Revenues restored unto him. And 4. That a Compen­sation may be allowed to his Maj. in liew of what he shall passe away. The Ministers have delivered to the King another paper concerning Episc [...]pacy; but his Maj. is not yet satisfied, so as to passe away their Lands quite. A coppy whereof followeth viz,

WEE desire to speak both to the Bishops Chal­lenge, and to your Majesties description of E­piscopall Government. And first to their Ch [...]llenge; be­cause it is first exprest in your Majesties Reply.

The Challenge we u [...]dertake in two respects: 1. In respect of the power challenged; 2. In respect of that ground, or Tenure upon which the claim is laid. The power challenged consists of 3. particulars; Ordaining, giving Rules of Discipline and Censures. No more, no o­ther, in respect of their Episcopall Office. We see not, by what warra [...]t this Writ of p [...]tition is taken forth, by which the Apostilicall Office is thus shared or divided; The Governing part into the Bishops hands; the Teach­ing and administring Sacraments, into the Presbyters. For besides that the Scripture makes no such inclosure, or partition wall, it appears, the challenge is grown to more then was pretended unto in the times of grown E­piscop [...]cie. Jerome and Chrysostome do both acknow­ledge for their time, that the Bishop and Presbyter dif­fered only in the matter of Ordination: and learned Dr. Bilson makes some abatement in the claim of 3. saying, the things proper to Bishops, which might not be com­mon to Presbyters, are singularly of succeeding, and su­periority in Ordaining.

1. The name of Bishop the Scripture neither expresly nor by implication gives to either the work which they are injoyned to do is common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, and cannot of it self make a Cha­racter of one distinct and proper Office; But that there was such an order of Officers in the Church as Evange­lists reckoned amongst the extraordinary and tempora­ry Offices, and that Timothy was one of that Order, and that both Timothy and Titus were not ordained to one particular Church, but were Companions and f [...]llow Labourers with the Apostles, sent abroad to severall Churches as occasion did require, it is as we (humbly, [Page 3] conceive) clear enough in Scripture, and not denyed by the learned defenders of Episcopal Government nor (as we remember) by Scultetus himself during the time of their Travells.

2. To that which Your Maj. secondly saith, That we cannot make it appear by any Text of Scripture that the Office of Evangelist is such as we have described, his work seeming, 2 Tim. 2. 4. 5. to be nothing else but dili­gence in preaching the word, notwithstanding all im­pediments and oppositions, We humbly Answer, That exact definitions of these or other Church-Officers are hard to be found in any Text of Scripture, but by com­paring one place of Scripture with another, it may be proved as well what they were, as what the Apostles & Presbyters were, the discription by us given being a Character ma [...]e up by collation of Scriptures, from which Mr. Hooker doth not much vary, saying that E­vangelists were Presbyters of principall sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiasticall Affaires, wheresoever they saw need.

Thirdly. Your Majesty saith, that that which we so confidently affirme of Timothy & Titus, their acting as E­vangelists is by some denyed and refuted, yea even with scorne rejected by some rigid Presbyterians, and that which we so confidently deny, that they were Bishops, is confirmed by the consentient testimony of all antiqui­tie, recorded by Ierome himself that they were Bishops of Pauls ordination, acknowledged by very many late Divines, and that a Catalogue of 27. Bishops of Ephesus lineallie succeeding from Timothy out of good Record is vouched by Dr. Reynolds and other Writers.

Our confidence (as your Majesty is pleased to call it) was in our Answer exprest in these words, we cannot say that Timothy and Tytus were Bishops in the sense of Your Maj. but extraordinary Officers are Evangelists, in which opinion we were then clear, not out of a totall ig­norance of those Testimonies which might be alledg­ed against it, but from intrinsick arguments out of Scripture, from which your Maj. hath not produced any one to the contrary, nor is our confidence weakned by such replyes as these, the Scripture never calls them Bishops, but the Fathers do, the Scripture calls Timothy an Evan­gelist, some of lrte have refuted it, and rejected it with scorn, the Scripture relates their motions from Church to Church, but some affirm them to be fixed at Ephesus and in Creet, the Scripture makes distinction of Evange­lists & Pastors, but some say that Timothy & Titus were both, we cannot give Your Majesty a present account of Scultetus and Gherards Arguments, but do believe that M. Cillespi & Rutherford are able with greater strength to refute that opinion of Timothy and Titus their being Bi­shops, then they do (if they do) with scorn reject this of their being Evangelists.

Your Majesty saith, that we affirm but upon very weak proofes, that they were from Ephesus & Creete, removed to other places, the contrary whereunto hath been de­monstrated by some, who have exactly out of Scripture compared the times, and order of the severall journies, and stations of Paul and Timothy.

It is confeffed that our assertion, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, lies with some stresse upon this, that they removed from place to place, as they were sent by or accompanied the Apostles, the [Page 5] proof whereof appeares to us, to be of greater strength then can be taken off by the comparison, which your Majesty makes of the Devines of the Assembly at West­minster.

And for the travells of Timothy & Titus we find them in order recorded in these Scripture places, Act. 17. 14. 15. 1 Thes. 3. 1. 2. Act. 18. 5. Act. 19. 22. Act. 20. 4. 5. 6. 17.

Now if your Maj. shall be pleased to cast up into one totall that which is said, the severall journeyes and sta­tions of Timothy, the order of them, the silence of Scrip­tures touching his being Bishop of any one Church, you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fix­ed to one Church or precinct; and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man, you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus.

The like conclusion may be inforced from the like premisses, from the instance of Titus. Gal 1. 2. Titus 3. 12. 22. 12. 2. Cor. 5. 6. 2 Cor. 8. 6. 2. Tim. 4. 10.

To that which is asserted, That these singular persons were Bish. in distinct sence, whither we brought any thing of moment to infirm this, we humbly submit to your Maj. judgment, and shall only present to you that in your reply you have not taken notice of that which in our Answer seemes to us of moment, which is this.

That in misterious & prophetick writings or visio­nall representations, a number of things or persons is u­suall exprest in singulars, and this in visions is the usual way of Representations of things, a thousand persons making up one Church, is represented by one Candle­stick; many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angell.

Lastly these writings are directed as epistolary letters to collective bodies usually are (that is) to One, but in­tended to the body; which your Majestie illustrateth by your sending a Message to your 2 houses, and directing it to the Speaker of the house of Peers, which as it doth not hinder (we confesse) but that the Speaker is one fin­gle person, so it doth not prove at all, that the Speaker is alwaies the same person, or if he were, that therefore because your Message is directed to he [...] that he is the Governour or Ruler of the 2 houses in the least, and so your Majesty hath given clear instance that though these letters be directed to the angels, yet that notwithstand­ing they might neither be Bishops nor yet perpetuall Moderators.

As for your Majesties condescension, in vouchsaf­ing us the Liberty, and Honour of examining Your Learned, Reply Cloathed in such Excellency of Stile, and for Your exceeding Candour; shewed to such men as we are, and for the acceptation of our humble duty we render to your Majesty most humble thanks, and shall pray, That such a Peen in the hand of such abili­ties, may ever be imployed in a subject worthy of it. Sir having thus acquainted you with the chief heads of the answer to His Majesties last Papers, till next oppor­tunity I remaine,