THE JUDGEMENT OF A MOST REVEREND AND LEARNED MAN FROM BEYOND THE SEAS, CONCERNING A THREEFOLD ORDER OF BISHOPS, WITH A DECLARATION OF CERTAIN OTHER WEIGHTY POINTS, CONCERNING THE DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.   

THE JUDGEMENT OF A MOST REVEREND AND LEARNED MAN FROM BEyond the seas, concerning a threefold order of Bishops: with a declaration of certain other weighty points, concerning the discipline and government of the church.  
We must needs make three bishops.  

1 Of God.  
2 Of man.  
3 Of the devil.   

A Bishop ordained of God, or set up by the law of God, doth declare nothing else but their calling, which by an other more special name, are called pastors, whom (saith Luke) the holy Ghost hath appointed 
Etheto episcopon poykanein ten ecclesian tou theou.  Bishops to feed the Church of GOD. And either of these names of Pastor or of Bishop, is proper to them in the new Testament, whereby the Apostle doth distinguish them from Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, which were callings to endure for a time, Ephes. 4. 11. and from Deacons, 1. Tim. 3. and Phil. 1. 1. for otherwise they are every where called Elders, & Paul doth call his Apostleship a Deaconship. Rom. 11. 13. But they are called Bishops in regard of the sheep committed unto them, as though a man should call them watchmen of overseers.  
These now were one alone, as where any church had but one Pastor, or more if the Church had more than one. And the meeting of them together jointly with their Elders, whom Paul calleth governors, of the other common name 
●eureuses Presbyte●ion.  called, was the Eldership. Their duty was to attend on the word and prayer, both publicly and privately, and in common to govern the Church, as appeareth by many places of Scripture.  
That the same were subject to magistrates, though profane, appeareth not only by the example of Christ the high Priest, and of the Apostles, but also by the express words of Paul, 1. Timoth. 2. and Luke 12. 13.   

OF THE BISHOP THAT is of man.  
THe Bishop that is of man, that is to say, brought into the Church by the alone wisdom of man, besides the express word of God, is a certain power given to one certain Pastor above his other fellows, yet limited with certain orders or rules provided against tyranny. They which did bear this office of bishop, are called bishops in regard of their fellow Elders and the whole clergy, as watchmen set over the clergy.  
That this calling was not brought in by the word, it is manifest by that, that there is not to be found in the new Testament, so much as one syllable, whereby there may be the least surmise of any such thing. For although we doubt not, but all things ought to be done orderly in the lords house, and therefore that some one should be precedent in every assembly, whom john in the Revelation seemeth to call the Angel of the Churches. And Austen calleth the moderator Proestota, yet this moderator of actions of the Church, saving this one thing, that he was the first in order in the company; had no authority over his fellows, neither did he exercise any higher office. Therefore the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, as Jerome noteth, doth call the whole company of the elders, 
Egoumenous. Hebr. 13.  governors; not any one certain man. Such a one was Peter many times in the very assembly of the Apostles, of a great authority surely amongst the Apostles, who were all otherwise equal, and yet he himself one of the company of the Apostles, sent by his companions to Samaria with john, Act. 8. 14. and in the assembly giving an account of his ministry, to those which were of the Circumcision, Acts 11. 2. But if any such bishoplike authority of any one above the rest, as there was afterwards, had been then, surely the apostles would have set down their names even at that time, in their letters which they sent from one to another, especially seeing Paul in his epistle to the Philip. doth name bishops in the plural number, and Deacons: or there should have been at least some peculiar mention made of them. Which, seeing it is not done, it appeareth that amongst these governors, there was none in degree above their companions and fellow bishops: but as occasion served, the Churches were governed by a fellowlike & equal authority, among the fellow-elders in their elderships, he only going before the rest, whose godliness and authority, the company did most allow of.  
Epiphanius against the Arrians, defending the contrary opinion: namely, the bishop ordained by man, as ordained by God, doth bring forth three reasons to the contrary. Two as it were out of the word of God: the third out of the history of those times. The first place is, 1. Tim. 5. 1. Rebuke not an Elder, 
Presbyteron me ●peplexen●  etc. whereby he gathereth, that Timothy had some authority over the Elders, that is, the Pastors of the church of Ephesus. But (be it spoken with the favour of so worthy a man) he should have marked, that here an elder is called, he that is such by age, not he that is a Pastor, which is declared by the opposition next following of young men. 
〈◊〉 reote ….   
another place is out of the same Epistle, receive not an accusation against an Elder, the first of Timothy 5. 19 Whereby he gathereth, that the Elders were subject to the Bishops and tribunal seat. But who will grant him that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus. For the history will easily re●ell that, which the fathers do report as certain. For no man can deny that Timothy was one that accompanied Paul, and therefore no bishop assigned to any one certain place, who was sent one while to this place, an other to that, for the establishing of the Churches: and finally, that he was an Evangelist, and not a bishop of any one certain flock. I have desired thee (saith he) to abide at Ephesus, whilst I went into Macedonia. And why so? namely, to look to the Church which he had begun to establish, until he were called for again, which he doth in the other epistle. What? and did the Apostle rob the Ephesians of their Bishop, without ask their church at the least? Surely, when he went last to jerusalem, never minding to return to Ephesus, either he would have restored Timothy unto them, or the Ephesians would have required him again of the Apostle, when he put them in mind of so great danger at hand: or if another were to be put into his room, he would have made express mention in that his divine Sermon. But he is said to have sent for the Elders only, and to have warned them of the duty belonging to them all. Yet it need not seem strange to any, that the Evangelist Timothy, a man endued with so many and so great gifts remaining at Ephesus, did govern all things by his direction, as one in degree above the Elders, and by the Apostles authority appointed there for a tyme.  
But let us grant Epiphanius more than this, that Timothy had the authority of the laying on of hands out of these words of the Apostle, Say not hands suddenly upon any: Let us grant this too, that these duties belonged to the governors, yet we deny that Timothy could have had any authority therefore, over the Elders of Ephesus, except he had been an Evangelist. For Paul himself Tim. 4. 14. doth show sufficiently that the laying on of the hands was done, in the name of the Eldership itself, not by the authority of any superior. Now the reasons of the same Epiphanius are these: Bishops (saith he) beget the fathers of the Church, but Elders the sons, in as much as bishops and not Elders ordained bishops. But what is this else, then to ask to have that which is in question: for it may be and aught to be answered, that the bishops took that authority upon them, without warrant of the word of God, and that the rule is false, which concerning this matter, doth attribute it to the Apostles, which may be showed by the ordaining of Timothy by the Eldership. Again, forasmuch as election is the chief ground of church-offices, which dependeth of the voices of the whole company, and not of the laying on of hands, which made not bishops, but sent them into their possession after they had made them: we may more truly affirm with the Apostle, that the holy Ghost by the voices of the children themselves, made the fathers, and not the bishops.  
An other of his reasons is, a depraving of places alleged out of Paul, that the Church being new borne, bishops could not be so established everywhere at the first, as is to be seen in the election of Deacons. Whom yet can Epiphanius persuade, that it was for want of fit men only, that there were many bishops in every Church? For that which not only Jerome, but Epiphanius against the Miletians also reporteth, concerning them of Alexandria: that is, Alexandria never had two bishops, as the other cities, upon what ground 
Oupote● lexandr● duo epis● pous eich● os kai al● poleis.  the men of Alexandria did it, & followed not the examples of other churches, let them see to it.  
Finally, that this kind of bishop, which who so beareth it, is not the first in order amongst his fellow elders, but in degree above them, being the only man in his diocese, is not ordained by the word of God, but by custom amongst the father's Jerome witnesseth, as very many others long since have observed: For these are his words in his epistle to Euagrius.  
The Apostle (saith he) doth teach plainly, that Elders and Bishops are all one, etc. And where as one after was chosen to be set over the rest, that (saith he) was a remedy found out for remedy of schism, that every one drawing Christ unto himself, might not rend the Church in sunder. For at Alexandria also from the time of Mark the Evangelist, to the time of Heraclea and Dionysius the Bishop, the Elders placed one in a high degree or place, chosen by themselves, whom they called a bishop. Moreover, upon the first to Titus. An Elder and a Bishop (saith he) is all one, and before by the instigation of the devil, there was partaking in religion, it was said amongst the people: I am of Paul, of Apollo's, and of Caephas: the Churches were governed by the common advise of the Elders. But after that every one imagined, that those whom he baptized were his own, and not Christ's: it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one chosen of the Elders, should be set above the rest; unto whom all the care of the church might appertain, to the taking away of the seeds of contentions. And a little after, As the Elders know that they ate subject by the custom of the Church to the Bishop that is set over them: so let the Bishops know, that they are greater than the Elders, rather by custom, then by any virtue of the lords appointment. Yea and Augustine also in his 19 epistle saith, that according to the titles of honour, which the use of the Church hath gotten, the office of a bishop is greater than the office of an Elder.  
Chrysostom also witnesseth, upon the first to Timothy and the 3. chapter, That the Bishops differ from the Elders only in ordination; that is (as Theophilact speaketh more plainly) in the only ceremony of consecration. Theodoret writing upon the same place, saith, That in old time they called the same men Elders and Bishops, as though forsooth the thing itself had then been only called by another name, and goeth about to prove that, because Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians. This is of no weight at all. The names which are given of fellow labourer, and fellow soldier, do declare that he was no bishop in this kind of bishop, but an Evangelist tied to no one city, much less to a diocese, of the number of those, whom the Apostles did keep, to send to and fro, at the motion of the spirit of God. The council of Nice also, disputing about the degrees of bishops, allegeth ancient customs, whereof we mind to speak anon. And where as Cyprian not in one place, calleth the bishop's successors of the Apostles, whose authority is from God; and if we take it so, as though by the very commandment of God, these bishops are the same, that in time past the Apostles, the thing itself doth refute that, seeing there was always a certain portion assigned to every bishop. But the Apostles, by the direction of the spirit rite of God, though not confusedly, did exercise their ministry throughout the whole world. But if this be true, there should have been more bishops, in the Church of Rome itself: namely Peter and Paul, which yet afterwards was counted peculiar to one. And surely, there cannot be more, the chief in one and the same company at one time. And whereas the name of Bishops, is said of the Apostleship. Act. 1. 20. It maketh nothing to the matter, except a man by a like reason would have the Deacons to have been Apostles, because Paul calleth his Apostleship a Deaconship or ministry. But we are to look 
Did●●nian  into that also, that Jerome might seem to be of the mind, that this kind of Bishop begun them, when as schisms arose up in the Church. That this is not so, we may gather out of Paul himself, who of purpose writing to the Corinthians about the same matter, doth not only pass over this remedy: but also as foreseeing such a matter, doth in the title of the epistle, join unto himself Sosthenes, to teach by his example how carefully this Primacy is to be avoided in assemblies of the Church, who (it is evident were not only the first in order next unto Christ, but also highest in degree) did execute their ministery in common. Wherefore, no not the same Paul alone would excommunicate the incestuous persons by his Apostolical authority, but by the authority of the whole Eldership, neither doth Peter doubt to call himself fellow elder. 
Sunprosbuteron.   
Nay this is so far off from being any good remedy, from staying of schisms, that contrary wise there was never more bitter contention in the Church, then about this primacy which had never come to pass, if this pre-eminence above their fellows had been forbidden, or rather, if men had never brought it in. Whereupon we conclude, that this kind of bishop which is not of order, but of superiority, was brought in of man, & as Jerome saith Tit. 1. by little & little, & that so as he is in deed thought, that the planets of dissensions might be thereby plucked up, all the care was committed to one man.  
And whereas he saith in the same place, that it was decreed throughout all the world: We are to understand it no otherwise, then of a privy custom, brought in by little & little. And what soever is found in Ignatius, or other ancient Writers, when the bishop of Satan was not yet found out, touching the authority of the bishops or overseers (as justin speaketh) is to be underderstood of this kind of Bishop.   

THE BISHOP OF THE Devil.  
THus also we describe the bishop of the devil: that even as that kind of bishop ordained of God, degenerated by little and little, into an human ordinance, whereof we entreated in the second place: so this of the devil, against which we now labour, is sprouted forth of the corruption of the bishop brought in by man. Of this intolerable corruption there are foul, most manifest, and undoubted marks. Some of this kind of bishops have wholly singled themselves from the Elderships, so that they have nothing to do with them: Some have wholly abolished them. And that they have challenged unto themselves, and I know not to what Officials the whole guidance of the church, & chief the authority to elect, to depose, and to excommunicate: so as they not only are above others, but as it were alone do exercise Lordship over God's heritage, contrary to the express inhibition of Peter.  
That also they have invaded upon temporal dominions, contrary to the flat commandment of Christ. And that they will not only be present, but also Precedent in causes of this life, and affairs of the Common wealth, the commandment of the Apostle to the contrary notwithstanding, 2. Tim. 2. 1. Cor. 6. yea and that of Christ himself, Luke 13. 14.  
That also they waste in riot & stateliness against conscience and all shame, the goods consecrate to holy uses.  
That also they have tied the spirit of God to certain places and persons, as though the bishop of the more noble place, must needs have necessary gifts above the rest: or as though he, who now is most fit, must needs be so always.  
And last of all, that they are the image of that beast which is described, Apoc. 13. as Pope Anacletus himself witnesseth, epist. 2. in as much as they are distinguished among themselves, by those their thrones and degrees, according to the pattern of the Roman Empire. The Apostle, Act. 20. 19 foretold of this Hierarchy, as they term it, of the false bishop, which in time became an Antichristian primacy. And in the 3. john 9 it is most manifest, that Satan begun even then to lay the foundation of this mystery.  
Now out of the history of the Nicene Council, which otherwise touching doctrine was every where received, it is clear how foul dissensions were even then, of ordering the bonds between the bishops, the fountains whereof they were so far from damning ug, that pretending ancient customs, they confirmed the Patriarkship, and made a way for the horrible Papacy of Rome then sliding on, and underlaid the seat for the harlot that sitteth upon seven mountains. But far be it of, that these things, although they have their ancient and great authority, should be prejudicial to the divine and Apostolical writings, according to the rule, whereof there is no wise man will doubt, that the Counsels themselves are to be squared.  
And to what purpose should I confute that agreement between the priesthood of the Levites, & of Christ, which some old writers allege to prove this devilish oligarche, and at the length even plain tyranny. In deed it is evident, that the high priest was a figure of Christ himself, whose second image if we grant that the bishops are, it will follow, that there are as many images of Christ, as there be bishops, in as much as there is none above him. But contrariwise, no bishop hath been the image of Christ. Besides, bishops are not heads of the universal Church, but of their own particular: Nay, no heads at all, in as much as the Bishops are under Archbishops, the Archb. under patriarchs, and they again under the Pope, that is not under the true figure, but the counterfeit figure of Christ. Now seeing that our only head is taken up into heaven, a successor for whom living for ever, we are not to seek: who seethe not that the elders ordained by the law of God, come in the room of the priests of the law, and the Deacons to answer to the Levites?   

The first question.  
Seeing that there are ordained in several Churches, several pastors and ministers, and the authority of all Christ's ministers in the Church seem to be equal: Whether the office of the bishops be necessary in the church to procure meetings when occasion serveth, admission to the ministery, and removing from the place upon just causes: or whether all the ministers having equal authority, and not under the authority of any superior bishop, aught to choose fit men with the consent of the Patron who enjoyeth the benefice, and the people themselves, as also to correct & remove from the charge. And the manners of the people themselves, who can hardly or not at all be kept in obedience without the bridle of the bishop's authority, which may run through in visiting of the Churches of the province, may put us in mind to retain such bishops. Again, so often as there shallbe dealing in matters touching the safety of the common wealth in the solemn assemblies of the land, according to the laws which the kingdom hath of a long use and custom received, there can be nothing established without the bishops, who have the third room and place in the kingdom, which to take away, or wholly to put down, would be very dangerous to the Common wealth.  

The answer to the first question.  
Where as Satan's bishop hath been the overthrow of the Church and all Christian kingdoms, whose head is the Roman Antichrist, it is to be looked unto of all hands, especially of all godly princes, that they at once abolish it, if they mind the reformation of the Church, and their own safety. As for the bishop ordained by man, & brought into the Church by little and little, whereby Satan made him a way for greater things, it had been tolerable, so that with all the ancient good laws providing for the resisting of the governing by some few, had been in their former force again. But beside, that the state of the world being quite changed, experience of so many ages doth teach us too well, that unless this root also be plucked up, it will come to pass, that the same fruit will sprout and bud forth again. Finally, seeing the Lord hath so often decided this controversy of superiority among his own disciples, that he shut it clean out, seeing the rule both for doctrine & good order of the Church, is to be sought for out of the very writings of the apostles: & it is manifested, the churches then prospered, when all this authority of one man over the rest, yet was not, but as that grew up, so all things fell to decay. Finally, seeing where the remnants of this government by a few, are not clean taken away, the work of the Lord, is openly hindered: Our judgement is, that after the chase away of this devise of man, the churches shall be well provided for, if they may be repaired according to the writings of the Apostles. And the reformation as it seemeth to us, consisteth herein, that first the whole kingdom is to be divided into regions. Again, the regions into parishes, either of Cities or country towns: that in places most fit, and of greatest assembly, be placed pastors, being lawfully propounded by the company of their own elders, to the kings christian majesty, or the deputies thereof, and allowed of all. Lastly, being received of their own people, over whom they are to be set, they be placed, promulgation having gone before: and that in every parish the pastor may have with him fit men to assist him, who also may, being watchful, salve up the offences not so weighty, leaving the other of greater importance, to the whole eldership. Also, that eldership made of the pastors of parishes, both of city & country, and a sufficient number of men approved for their godliness & wisdom, lawfully also chosen, as is aforesaid, be placed in most fit places, who assembling at a certain time and place, may determine of the Church-affayres, of their own government, according to the prescript laws, first set down in a general council, and afterward confirmed by the authority of the sovereign majesty.  
In this company let there be chosen by common voices, one first in order not superior in authority, who shall be thought most fit, and that without making choice of any certain place, & but for a certain tyme. After the expiring whereof, either let another be chosen, or else the same man is to be established again for another time by a new consent: whose office is to make report of the common affairs to the company, to demand their judgements, and to give sentence by the judgement of the eldership, having no authority given him over his fellows, to whom rather he is most subject. In this assembly let nothing be debated of besides matters of conscience, & that by the word of god, & the laws of church discipline established, drawn out of the word of God, not one whit meddling with the authority of the civil magistrate. And let the sovereign majesty & the lawful magistrate thereby appointed, be keepers of this order, & the punisher of those that seditiously rage against it. But if any shall imagine that this sudden abolishing of both these bishops will minister occasion of new stirs, although we see not with what conscience the bish. may so challenge to themselves the goods of the church, or else call themselves bishops, & live like princes of this world: yet for to keep the common peace, the sovereign majesty may leave unto them, which are now bishops, their revenues whole for their life time, so they trouble not the well made order of the Church, with providing there be none chosen into their place, when they be dead. As for the frowardness of the people, it may be kept down better a great deal by other reins, then by the authority of a false named bishop; as by preaching of the word of God, by censures of the church, and the authority of the magistrate of the country, against the open troubles of the public state, either ecclesiastical or civil. The Churches may very well be visited at set times without any great cost and bishoplike pride, by them whom every eldership hath chosen under the K. majesties authority which will not be always necessary, if the elders do rightly execute their office. This sitting of the bish. with the authority of the voice in the public estates of the kingdom, came in with a manifest abuse, contrary to the word, & therefore in our mind is to be utterly abolished. For the bish. hath nothing to do in ordering of mere civil affairs: yet forasmuch as in such assemblies, especially some things many times happen, belonging to the establishing of the estate, & order of the churches: the keepers whereof the godly magistrates ought to be, & not the over turners, as we are taught by the example of holy kings. It is very necessary, that as often as the meetings of the land are proclaimed, intelligence thereof be given to the chief elders, who may be present in the behalf of their seignories, yet not sitting as judges, but dealing about matters of the church only with the estates of the land, as their elderships have given them in charge, except the states think good upon extraordinary occasion, that they ask counsel of God about some other affairs also. If also the kings Majesty think good to admit into counsel amongst the pastors or elders, one, who shall be thought to be wise and experienced in things, he may admit him, though not as a pastor or elder, yet as a citizen. And it were injurious to remove from their office in the Church, the pastors, and much less the Elders and Deacons, otherwise laymen from that degree, which they hold as citizens, either in the common wealth, or in the assemblies. But the king's majesty, and all the Princes & Lords, are to be exceeding wary, that they make not courtlike governors of their pastors, to the great endamaging of the Church, as we have a fair example in Eusebius of Nicomedia in the court of Constantine. As for the right of the patronage, lest some man should say, that it was gotten for himself. Our judgement is, that it may be concealed, but not without some conditions: namely, that he which shall be chosen by the free voices of the eldership, should be offered by the Patron to the king's majesty, being also to set upon his charge, after the consenting of his flock.    

The second question.  
After that religion is reform, it hath been a received custom that the bishops, and of the ministers, pastors & elders, so many as should be sent of the bishops, should assemble themselves, that they together with the chief Barons and nobles which profess the true religion, might make enquiry after the doctrine and manners of every one. But seeing the prince himself is a lover of the true religion, it is a question whether there may be such an assembly with out the consent or commandment of the prince. Whether the ministers alone may meet as often as they will. Last of all, whether the nobles and other godly men & elders, (which are yearly chosen with us out of the people and nobility together) may lawfully or expediently come without the commandment of the king to such assemblies. Which assembly of the nobles and people, seemeth to some altogether needles under a godly prince, either because it hath not long since been received by a mere custom without any law, and that under a prince, who then resisted the religion, whereby such assemblies might have the greater authority: or else because it may seem dangerous, if so many nobles assemble so often, without the consent of the king, they may sometimes consult of some thing else besides religion.  
Others think that this assembly is in no case to be refused, but rather that it is very needful that the Nobles and other religious men be present as helpers to their ministers in the assembly, bearing witness of their life and the people's behaviour, otherwise it will after come to pass, that if an impious prince reign afterward, that neither ministers may safely assemble, neither can the determination be put in execution without the consent, help & aid of the nobles.  

To the second question.  
Counsels are necessary in the Church for many causes, both to the retaining of agreement, and also to the seeking of remedies by common advise for the dangers which fall out. And last of all, to take order for those that rest not in the judgement of particular seignories, if they think they have any injury done them. And these Counsels are either of a whole nation, or of some one Region or Province (or Diocese as they have begun to speak after the description of the Provinces of Rome) divided into many signiories.  
It is necessary that the Counsels of the provinces be divided for many causes, & except there be other urgent causes, they would be appointed rather every half year then quarterly, least in discoursing of matters, they spend the time in vain. And it will be best for the avoiding of ambition, that the Council be not always assembled in the same place of every province: but as soon as one half years Synod is discussed, it may be determined by common consent, where shall be the place of the next following. It will be very well that two of every signory of the province, chosen by common voices, and sent with some commission, be present at these counsels: one a pastor, and the other an Elder or a Deacon. Neither would we have any strife about sitting, who should sit first or last, but every one to sit, as it shall fall out without any contention, and the judgement to be given as any one shall sit.  
Now, he that shall govern the whole action, who was chosen for this one thing by common consent of voice, the chief pastor of the place, being in the beginning Precedent, which office shall end, when the Council shall be ended. There are no matters in question to be propounded to these Counsels to take knowledge of, but such as are more spiritual & belong to that province, where they are to be decided without appeal by the word of God, & the rules there set down, without any brabbling or disturbance of the company. Yet if any great private controversy shall fall out in the provincial Synod, where some may think that he hath cause to complain of injury done unto him, he may put up his complaint to be decided in a general council, when it shallbe thought good to assemble it.  
Furthermore it is chief required, that if all the laws of the Church be established of the king's christian majesty: it followeth, that the Counsels are to be assembled by his commandment and direction, and not otherwise. Neither yet is there a new commission every time to be sought for of the king for that purpose, seeing his majesty hath once established a law touching the set times of ordinary Synods. But yet if there arise just cause of suspicion of handling in these meetings, other matters besides mere ecclesiastical, it shall be safe for the king's majesty to send one of his subjects whom he will, to disgrace by his presence the meeting of the Synods: where yet he is not to be as a judge, except some thing fall out where it is necessary that the authority of the civil magistrate be put between.  
A general council of the land is not to be assembled but upon great causes, which seeing they agree not with set times, it followeth, that they are not to be standing neither: but as often as some thing shall seem to fall out of so great weight, either in doctrine or in government of the church, as cannot well be decided but in a general meeting, that province is to be careful, to put other provinces in mind concerning that matter, in these half years Synods: that with the consent of all, or the greater part, they go unto the king's majesty, who (as being a christian prince, is to desire nothing more, than the peace of the churches) ought without any stay or doubting, at the suit of the Churches, to appoint a place and time for a general meeting, as the need of the churches shall require. And the same order may seem to be kept in the general Counsels, which is in the provincial, whether before the king's majesty himself, as in some general counsels, the emperors of Rome have been present, or before the honourable lords of the king's majesty. And last of all, whatsoever shall be allowed by the common consent of the Synod, shall be confirmed by the kings majesties express authority, after the example of the godly Emperors.    

The third question.  
Whether the king or the bishops are to call the assembly of the Church, and as concerning what matters they may make laws.  

To the third question.  
We have answered the first part of this question already. To the second we answer. First it is not lawful, no not for the angels themselves, to make any laws for the conscience, but the church is to be upholden by those which the Lord hath enacted, seeing we are now to look for no new revelation, the whole counsel of God touching our salvation, being fully & perfectly made manifest. Our judgement also is, that the discipline or good order is to be sought for out of the word of God, and to be kept inviolable, as the second part of christian doctrine. Yet there remaineth two things, whereof there may, yea and there ought to be laws set down in the Church. For first of all, where as every thing is not expressly and in so many words set down in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: therefore in controversies both concerning doctrine and the substance of Church discipline, the Council ought to comprehend the deciding of them in unfallible and plain heads, as by certain rules, like as it was done profitably in those right approved Counsels both Oecumenie & particulars, against the blasphemy of the heretics, and the malipertnesse of the disordered. And where as there come many questions in the seignories, especially when there is dealing about marriages, though there cannot be certain rules set down touching them out of the word of God: yet so near as may be, rules drawn out of the comparing of the scriptures, are to be set down, after which they may be decided: yet is neither any thing taken from the word of God, by the putting to of this, so it be rightly done. But this is rather an interpretation of the word of God, & a declaring how one followeth upon another. Again, where the substance both of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline abideth whole and unchangeable: yet must the outward circumstances of the order needs be changed, for the same reason of the person & places, abideth not always. For we see the Apostles love feasts taken away, & the decrees touching blood, and that which was strangled. The governors of the church are to provide also, that all may have intelligence, at what time & place it is expedient for any thing to be done in the Church: yet so as the doctrine itself, under which we also comprehend the ordaining of the sacraments, abide whole as God hath set it down. Further, that in setting down the laws of this order, there be set down nothing foolish or unprofitable, much less any of the old customs retained, which either is already stained with superstition, or which may easily make a way to superstition. Lastly, that in all these, there be a great regard of simplicity, and that the church be not loaded with a multitude of rules.  
And for the avoiding of the diversity of rites, it is necessary that these Canons, as in old time they called them, be set down in their general counsels, that any thing in the same land may be changed according to the tyme. But whatsoever shall be set down in those counsels, is to be established by the authority of the kings Christian majesty, as next after God, the keeper and defender of the churches.    

The fourth question.  
Whether the papists are to be excommunicate as Apostates, or utter fallers away, or to be punished with some smaller punishment.  

To the fourth question.  
We see not what sword of excommunication may be drawn out against those men, who though they were set into the church by no vain baptism: yet never entered into the fellowship of the pure church. Yea the doors are always to stand open that they may come to hear the word of God, and they are carefully to be alured thither, if at any time (as the Apostle saith) they may repent and get out of the snare of the devil, of whom they are holden captive. But if any shallbe thought to sin in an open contempt, our judgement is, that it ought wholly to be put over to the christian magistrate. We think that it beseemeth a Christian magistrate to deal much by lenity in the matter of religion towards his subjects, not being troublesome sectaries, & such as of knowledge blaspheme.    

The fift question.  
For what cause may any be excommunicated. As put case one kill a man, saying, he did it by chance, or of some necessity for his own safety, and is ready to be judged about that matter, not yet accused either of the king or of the neighbours of him that is killed: Whether may the Church make inquiry of the fact, whether it were done of treachery, or by chance, or of necessity, & compel the manslayer to profess repentance openly in the church, or to excommunicate him if he refuse.  

To the fift question.  
No man earnestly repenting, is to be excommunicate, but after repentance, rather ought to be received. And the cause of excommunication ought to be most weighty & a public offence, seeing that only the extremity of the diseases must have extreme remedies. Yet may such men after the thing be known, be suspended from receiving the lords supper (they were wont to call such men restrained) for whom this is thought to be a necessary remedy, that for the greatness of their offence, they may be an example to others, or that their repentance doth stand in need of trial. As for the present question. If the magistrate put in mind of his duty, do wink at such faults, and yet it be probable, that none is rashly accused: We think that the Eldership may call him forth, and there as the matter shall require, to exhort him to the acknowledging of the offence: which if ye shall deny, he is to be left to the judgement of God, neither are the Elders to proceed any further in the hearing of witnesses.    

The sixth question.  
Where as in the former age much wealth hath been given by princes and many other, to the bishops, monasteries etc. under the name of alms, & so great riches seem rather to hurt the bishops, then to do them good: and monasteries in the church and common wealth are unprofitable: what yet should become of such goods which were once consecrate to the church? For seeing the Bishops and ministers have sufficient of their tithes, whereof they may live well and honestly, can the prince with the consent of the states of the kingdom, turn the residue either to his private use, or the good of the common wealth, especially seeing such goods do consist not only in tithes, but of possessions, both in the country & the city. Which question, seeing it seemeth to be rather civil then ecclesiastical, I purposed not to trouble you in this point. But whereas many both learned & godly amongst us, are of this mind, that those things which have been once vowed to holy uses, cannot be given to profane uses, though they be public, I could not but mention the matter unto you.  

To the sixth question.  
Concerning the goods of the church. First of all we suppose great heed ought to be taken, that none do stain himself with handling the church goods. For if God hath taken revenge of such sacrileges, even amongst the very idolaters: what trow we will his judgement be against them which have spoiled his churches, and have profaned the things which were set a part for his true worship.  
Moreover it is evident, that this turneth greatly to the reproach of the name of God and of his holy gospel, as though forsooth papistry hath been abandoned, not for the love of the truth, but to rob the church of her goods, and as though new thieves have entered in the room of the old. Now, even as abundance doth overwhelm the Church, so it is to be feared, lest she be brought into great straits by want, whilst many now a days are no less sparing and niggardly in upholding the true ministery, than heretofore kings and princes themselves have been overlavishing: we think it needful to keep a mean in this point, which so we take will be the best, if first a view be taken of the daily expenses which are necessary to be made: then if somewhat be laid up for many things extraordinary, whereas no just reckoning can be made, and both of these be accounted not sparingly or slenderly, but bountifully and liberally, seeing that the Church by the goodness of God hath plenty. Therefore that number is to be made of parishes and pastors which may very well suffice the people, and every one is to have an honest living allowed. Order also is to be taken for the elders, who are to assist the pastors that they may conveniently discharge their duty. It would be also injurious, that the widows and children of the pastors which are dead, should be brought to beggary, who in a care of their calling, were constrained to lay aside the care of providing for their family. Schools also and universities, seeing they are the Seminary of the church are not the least part of the care thereof. Care also is to be had of alms houses & hospitals, & of churches, that they be kept in reparations, and new builded if need require. Last of all (as I say before) seeing the churches have plenty, order must be taken, what shall be brought into the Church treasury yearly, from whence may be fetched that which may suffice in time of war or famine, lest then it be to seek when it should be in a readiness. When all these things shall faithfully & frankly be brought by supputation into one sum still yearly: Good and sufficient men are to take order for their collecting, such a way as shall be without trouble or strife. That which shall be found to be overplus, is not to be lavished out with other public revenues, but to be laid up by itself (for these are of an other nature, though not always gotten after the honestest sort by the covetous priests) and we think that it may be taken & bestowed for the service of the kingdom, when the public necessity thereof doth require it, especially if the people be so much the more eased.