tâ—e manner of Ordination without any Bishops assistance which power of Ordination and imposition of hands hath ever since been prâ—ctised by Ministers in all reformed Chuâ—ches which have abandoned Bishops such as ours are and maâ—e themselves as contrary to Gods word â—atrick Adamsoâ— Arâ—h-Bishop of St. Andrews in Scotland in his recantation publickly made in the Synod of Fiâ—â—e Aprill 8 1591 conâ—esâ—eth that this office of a Diocesan Bishop Omne â—uthoritate verbi dei destituituâ— solo politico hâ—minum câ—nâ—mento â—uâ—datur is destitute of of all authority from Gods word and is onely â—ounded in the politicke figment of men out of which the primacy of the â—ope or Antichrist â—ath sprung and is worthily to be condemned becâ—use the asâ—embly of the â—â—esbytery penes quâ—m est jâ—risdictio inspectioâ—â—m in visitationibus tum in ordinationibus which having the jurisdiction and inspection both in visitations and in Ordinations will performe all these things with greater authority piety and zeale then any Bishop whatsoever whose caâ—e is for tâ—e most part intent not upon â—od or his â—â—â—ction but tâ—e world which he especially serves A 〈◊〉 blâ—w to our prelates Hieâ—achie For iâ— Bishops be not Iure divino and have no â—oundation in the word of â—od theâ— the power of OrdinatioÌ„ beloÌ„gs not â—to them Iure divino as they aâ—e Bishops neither can do or â—ught they to conâ—eâ—â—e Orders as Bishops but â—rely as they are Ministers And if so as is most certaine Then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as Bisâ—ops but only as Ministers and every Minister as he is a Minister â—ath as much right and authority to give oâ—ders as any Bishop whatsoever the true reason why even among us at this day Ministers ought to joyn with the Bishop in the imposition of hands neither can our Bishops ordaine any one a Minister unlesse 3 or 4 Ministers at least joyne with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands This being an apparent â—â—uth I shal hence from the Bishops owne principles prove Presbyters Superior and greater then Bishops in jurisdiction dignity and degâ—ee These say they to whom the power of Ordination belongs of Right are â—â—eater in jurisdiction dignity â—â—d degree then those who have not this power and the Ordainer higher in all these then the ordained But the power of Ordination belongs onely jure divino to â—resbyters as presbyters not to Bishops as to Bishops themselves not as Bishops but Presbyters and Bishops when they ordaine in a lawfull manner do it onely as Presbyters not as Bishops Therefore Presbyters are Superior to Bishops in jurisdiction Order and degree and Bishops themselves â—arre greater in all theseâ— as they aâ—e Presbyters an office of divine â—â—nction then as they are Lordly Prelates or Diocesan Bishops a meer humane institution Thus are our great Lord Bishops who vaunt of the weaknesse of puriâ—â—ne principles whereas their Episcopall are farre more feeble and absurâ— wounded to death with their own weapons and all their Domiâ—eering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle and foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverbe being here truly verified vis â—â—nsilij â—â—pâ—rs â—olâ— ruit sâ—â— I shall close â—p this with the words of acute Aâ—tâ—â—ius Sâ—dâ—â—l who after a large proof of Biâ—â—ops and presbyterâ— to be both â—ne and the same by divine institution winds up all in this mâ—nner We couclude therefore seeing that Superior Episcopall dignity is to be avouched onely humane institution Tantum essâ— hâ—mâ—ni iuris that it is only of humâ—ne right On the contrary since it is evident by the expressâ— testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbyters jurâ— diuinâ— pâ—tâ—stâ—tâ—â— ordinandi noâ— minus presbytâ—riâ— quâ—m Episcâ—pis convenirâ— that by Godâ— law and divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to preâ—biters as to Bishops I have now I hopâ— sufficiently maâ—ifested our Lordly prelates Arch-â—ishops Diocesâ—n Bishops distinct from presbyters to be none of Gods institution being therefore none of Gods Bishopâ— as they vainly pretend whose then must they be not the kingsâ— for thâ—n they are onely Iurâ— humanâ— which they have publikely â—â—sâ—lâ—imed iâ— Courtâ— therefore certainly eitheâ— the Popes or the â—evils or both as many of the recited writers stile theÌ„ for I know no other that can claime or own them wherfore being neither Gods nor the Kings but the Popeâ— or Devillsâ— or bothâ— what remaines but that now at last they should be spâ—red out of our Churchâ— as no members at all of Christs Church or bodyâ— but of the Devill Pope or Antichrist of Rome whose limbs and creatures in tâ—uth they are as Mauritius dâ— i Alâ—â—dâ— Henry k Stâ—lbridâ—â— and othersâ— expresly resolves and their actions past all dispute discover many of them to be yea as meere Individuum vaginus and meere unnaturall monsters they being neithâ—r Pastors nor members of any particular Church or congregation as all other Christians are besideâ— themselves I read in the l great Dutch Chronicle written by an Augustinâ— Frier that in the year of our Lord 1033 beyond Poland there was a strange Fisâ— taken of the quantity length and breadth and shape of a living man adorned with a Bishopâ— Miterâ— a pastorall Staff a Cassock a white Surplesse a Chessible Sandalsâ— Glovesâ— and all othes Robesâ— and ornaments requisite to the Dignity of â— Prelate like a Bishop solemnly attired and prepared to say divine Serviceâ— his Cassocke might be well lifted up before and behind from the feet to the knees but not higherâ— and he permitted himselfe to bee sufficiently â—andled and touched by manyâ— but especiâ—lly of the Bishops of that Countryâ— which Fish being presented to the King and demanded in the Language of that Countryâ— and of divers otherâ— nations who hee was and answering â—othing albeit he had opened hiâ— mouth giving reverence and honoâ—r to the Bishopâ— that were there in the Kings presence one Monster and dumbe unpreaching beastâ— saluting and respecting another the King being aâ—gry when hee had determined to commit him to prisoÌ„â— or shut him up iâ— soÌ„e stroÌ„g towâ—r the Fisâ— being very sorrowfull at this newes thereupon closed his eyes and would by no meanes open them untill the Bishops of that Kingdome m kneeling downe before the king in the fishâ—s preseâ—ce had with many prayers intreated and obtained of the King that he should be sent backe againe alive to the Seashoreâ— where hee had been takenâ— that God whose workes are incomprehensible might shew his nature and Acts least otherwise a plague should there ensue both to the King and his Subjects which their suit the King had no sooner granted but presently the â—oresaid Monster opened his eyes giving great thankes as it were to the King and especially to those Bishops After with a Chariot being prepared to carry the Fish backe againe the Fish in presence of an infinite
in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâ—ing it theÌ„selves as a truth Wherefore no ancient Counsell or Author whatsoever but Epiphanius branding it either for an heresie or Error I see not well how it should be so esteemed Secondly this hath been the constant received Doctrine both of Christ and his Apostles of all the Fathers and learned Orthodoxe writers in all ages as the precedent Catalogue witnesseth therefore no Heresie or Error as Epiphanius and some few of late out of him alone have rashly deemed it Thirdly it cannot properly be called an Heresie because the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers by a dâ—vine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâ—e it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâ—ius there condemnes Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring Prayer for the dead as for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall But this our Prelates must confesse unlesse they renounce this Doctrine of our Church was no Error or Heresie in Aerius but rather in Epiphanius why not therefore the other Fifthly Epiphanius himselfe doth not condeâ—ne Aâ—rius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ— quod tota res stuâ—titiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ— Naziaâ—zen Basill Sedulius Ambrose Chrisostome and Augustine taught the same Doctrine that Aerius did at or about the same time but they were never taxed of Heresie or Error for it either then or since why then should Aâ—rius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâ—ipture to prove his assertion as Hieromâ— hath done in his Epistle to Evagrius on Tit. 1. Seventhly Epiphanius his refutations of Aerius his Arguments and opinion is very ridiculous false and absurd For first he saith that Presbiters then had not the power of ordination neither did they use to lay on hands in the election and Ordination of Ministers which is a meere falshood as Hierom in Soph. c. â— with the â—th Counsell of Carthage witnes and I have elsewhere manifested at large Secondly he saith that Presbiters had no voice in the Election of Bishops and Ministers which is (s) contrary to all Antiquities extant and a most palpable untruth Thirdly he saith that there were then more Bishops then Presbiters and men sufficient worthy enough to be made Bishops but noâ— Presbyters and therfore the Apostle writing to the Philippians and others makes mention only of Bishops not of Presbyters because they had then Bishops but not Presbyters A miserable ridiculous answer which subverts that he contends for and constitutes Bishops without any Ministers under their command or jurisdictionâ— whence it will necessarily follow That seeing the Apostles instituted Bishops without Ministers under them aâ—d more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâ—ced in every churchâ— without any Ministers under â—hem but Deacons only and more Biâ—hops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their â—iocesâ—e and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoâ—â—les first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâ—ut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâ—und them worthy which is contrary to Stâ— t Ierome and â—ll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church 〈◊〉 14â— 23 Tit. 1 5 and that they afterward elected a Bishop out of themselves Fifthly he saith that the Apostles used to write to the Bishops of one Church in the plurall number when there was but one Bishop there which is very improbâ—ble yea contrary of all other expositors on â—hil â— 1. Tit. 1 5 7 Act. 20 17 2â— Sixthly he peremptorily determines Timothy to be a Bishop which I have elsewhere proved false and fâ—om this false ground would prove Bishops and Presbiters distinct Seventhly he interprets an Elder in the 1 Tim. 5.1 to be a Presbiter which most Fathers else expound only to be an ancient man Eightly he would prove Timothy a Bishop and Bishops to be Superior too and distinct from Presbiters because Paul exhorts him not to rebuke an Elder but to exhort him as a Father and not to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses which are grosse inconsequence as I have else where manifested so that Epiphanius whilst he goes about to prove Aerius his assertion still of folly steps into many Errors follies and absurdities himselfe as Bellarmine is inforced to confesse though desirous to make the best of it In a word then as all the forecited Authors in generall â—o in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis â—acramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâ—corum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â— c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ— Ecclesia p 2â—â— to 29â— Bishop Ioâ—â—ll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâ—tat Puritanâ— Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâ—itakeâ— câ—ntr Duraum l 6. sect â—â— ad ratio 10 Campiani Resp. Contr. lib. â— qu. 5. c. 7. Doctor Fulke and Mr. Cartwright confutation of the Remish Testament Phil. 1.1 Bishop Bridges in his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. Doctor VVillâ—t Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâ—de Sacr. hom Orig. l. 1â— c. 5. Doctor Armes in his Bellarminnus enarvatus Tom. 2. l 3 c 4. to omit others do all joyntly acquit Aâ—â—ius both â—roÌ„ the guilt of Heresie or Error in thiâ— very point and taxe Epiphanius for censuring him without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church condemning his answers to Aerius his reasons as notoriously absurd impertinent yea as foolish Childisâ— worthy to be hissed and derided I shall therfore conclude as doth our learned w Whittaker in this case verily if to condemne prayers for the dead and to equâ—ll Presbitersâ— with Bishops be hereticall Nihil Catholicum esse potest Nothing can be Catholicke so farre as it from being either an Heresie or Error as oâ—r absurd Prelates and their Sycophants Pretend If they object the Authority of x Ignatius that he advanceth Bishops above Presbyters commanding them to obey the Bishops as the Apostles obeyed Christ and willing the people to be subject to their Bishops as to God and Christ and to their Elders as to Christs Apostlâ—s therfore in his daies Bishops were Superior to Presbiters To this I answer that these Epistles of Ignatius are false and spurious as many y of our learned men have proved at large therefore of no Authority Secondly it is
A CATALOGVE OF SVCH TESTIMONIES IN ALL AGES AS PLAINLY EVIDENCE BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS TO BE BOTH ONE EQUALL AND THE SAME IN IURISDICTION Office Dignity Order and degree by divine Law and institution and their disparity to be a meere humane ordinance long after the Apostles times And that the name of a Bishop is onely a Title of Ministration not Dominion of Labour not of Honour of Humility not of Prelacy of painfullnesse not of Lordlinesse with a Briefe Answer to the Objections out of Antiquity that seeme to the contrary Printed in the Yeere 1641. The EPISTLE to the READER Christian Reader THere is nothing more frâ—quent in the mouthes of our Lording Prelates and their Flatterers then to vaunt That their Hierarchie and Episcopall Sâ—periority over other Ministers is by divine Right and Institution and that all Antiquity from Christs till Calvins dayes and all learned men except a despicable small number of Factious Puritans as they term them suffragate to this Conclusion This was the more then thrasonicall bâ—ast of Dr. Laâ—d Arch-prelate of Canterbury and some others not onely at the Censure of Dr. Layton in the Star-chamber and Dr. Bastwicke in the High-Commission some few yeares past but likewise at the late Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Mr. Burton and Mr. Prynne in the Star-chamber Iune 14. 1637. where in his learned Speech since Printed by speciall command through his own underhand procurement he thus magisterially determines pag. 6 7. This I will say he might have done well to have proved it first but that his Ipse dixit only is now an Oâ—acle and abide by it That the calling of Bishops to wit Archbishops and Dâ—ocaesans superiour to and distinct from Presâ—yters else his Speech is not onely idle but impertinent is Iure divino though not all adjuncts to their callings he should have done well to have specifieâ— what adjuncts in particularâ— And I say further that from the Apostles times in all ages in all places the Church of Christ was governed by Bishops to wit Diocaesan Bishops like to our Prelates now which he will prove at Graecas Calendas And Lay-Elders never heard of till Calvins new-fangled devise at Geneva To disprove which fabulous assertion I have not only particularly encountred it in the Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus to which no Answere yet hath been returned by this Over-confident Boaster or his Champions though specially challenged to Answer it but likewise by way ef Supplement to that Treaâ—ise drawn up this ensuing Catalogue which I challenge his Arch-grace with his brother Prelates Doctors Proctors Parasites to encounter with as many contrary Authorities if they can â— wherby both learned and illiterate may with ease discern that both by divine Institution the suffrages of Fathers Councels forraigne and domestick writers of all sorts aswell Papists as Protestants and the resolution of the Church and State of England in Convocation and Parliament Bishops and Presbyters are but one and the samâ— in point of Office and Iurisdiction and that the Superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is a meer humane Institution long after the Apostles dayes introduced partly by custome partly by the Bishops owne insensible incroachmeâ—ts upon their fellow brethren but principally by the grants connivances or indowments of Christian Princes destitute of any divine foundation to support it I confesse in the * Councel of Trent it was much debated among the Popish Prelates and Divines there present Whether Bishops were by divine Ordination Superiour to Priests But the Councel being divided in opinion left the Controversie undetermined Those Bishops and Divines who held the affirmative produced nothing out of Scripture or solid Antiquity to justifie their opinions worthy answere but that Aerius was deemed an Heretick for affirming the contrary which I have â—ere disproved yeâ— * Michael of Medina who alleageth this of Aerius was so ingenious to confâ—sse that Hierome Austin and some others of the Fathers as Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostomus Theodoret Oecumenius did fall into Aërius heresie in this point it being no wonder that they did so because the matter was not cleare in all points This his boldnesse to say that Hierome and Austin did savour of Haeresie gave great scandall but hâ— insisted the more upon it The Doctors saith the History were equally divided into two opinions in this point And when this * Article was propounded in this Romish Councel That the Bishops are instituted by Christ and are Superiour to Priests de Iure divino The Legates with others answered that the Lutherans and Heretiques having affirmed that a Bishop and a Priest is the samâ— thing * putting no difference between a Bishop a Priest but by humane constitution and affirming that the Superiority of Bishops was first by custom and afterwards by Ecclesiasticall constitution for which they ciâ—e the Augustane Confession made by the German Churches it was fit to declare that a Bishop is Superiour but that it was not necessary to say quâ— jure nor by whom a Bishop is instituted From whence it appeares clearly That halfe or more of these Trent Fathers with all the Lutherans and Protestant Churches at that time were cleare of opinion That Prelates Episcopacy is not Iure divino and those who peruse that History and * Bâ—llarmine may at â—irst discerne that all our Prelates arguments and Authorities now produced to maintaine their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be divine are taken verbatim from these Popish Fathers of Trent who maintain their assertion and Bellarmine de Clericis the stoutest Champion for their cause Alas to what miserable Shifts are our Prelates driven when they must thus fly to Trent to Bellarmine for ayd to support their tottering Thrones And yet these will stand them in no stead all the Trent Prelates confessing with S. Hierom. * That in the first beginnings of Christianity the Churches were governed by a kind of Aristocracy by the common Councel of the Presbytery and that the Monarchicall government and Superiority of Bishops and Archbishops crept in by custome as the (a) History of the Councel of Trent relates at large where you may read the originall of their Courts and Iurisdictions with the steps and meanes of their exorbitant growth and encroachments upon the temporall Iurisdiction and Prerogative of Princes well worthy the greatest Statesmens consideration Besides Dionysius Cathusianus and Cardinal Contarenus in their Commentaries on Phil. 1.1 confesse that in Pauls time Bishops and Presbyters were both one and that either Order was conferred on the Presbyter That Presbyters are there meant by Bishops whence it is usually said That in the Primitive times Bishops were not distinguished from Priests Azorisus the Iesuite Moral part 2. l. 3. c. 16. confesseth that in the Apostles times every where those who were ordained Elders in Cities were Bishops Cardinal Cusanus De Concordia Cathol. l. 2. c. 13. writes the same in effâ—ct All Bishops and perchance also Presbyters are of equall power
that See was 8 yeares vacant An 1225 after Richard Poore 4 years An 1â—â—0 4 years aâ—â—er Walter de la Wiâ—e An 1588 3 yeares aâ—ter Iohn â—ierce An 1596 2 yeares aâ—ter Iohn Coldwell a An 1166 the Bishopricke of Bath and Wels upon the death of Robert continued void 8 yeares 8 moneths and 15 dayes An 1242 after Ioceline 2 yeares Anno 1262 as long after William Buttâ—n Anno 1503 as long after Oliver King An 1547. as long after William Knight An 1381 3 yeares after Gilbert Barkely An 1590 2 yeares aâ—â—er Thomas Godwin b An. 1103 the Bishoprick of Exeter after Osberâ—us decease was vacant 4 yeares Anno 1182 after Bartholmeus Iscartus 2 yeares An 1119 after William Herbert the last Bishop of Thelfords death that See now Norwich was vacant 2 Yeares An 1214 after Iohn de Grey it was vacant 7 yeares Anno 1222 afteâ— Pandulfus 3 yeaâ—es Anno 1236 after Rodulphus almost 3 years and as long after William de Releigh An 1240 after Henry Spencer An. 1406 â—lmost 2 yeares c An 1095 after the death of Wolstan Bishop of Worâ—hester that See was vacant 2 yeares An 1113 as long after Sampsons An 1123 almost as long after Theulphus An 1179. after Roger An 1184 after William de Northale 5 yeares An 1198 after Iohn de Constantijs 2 yeares An â—1212 〈◊〉 long after Mangere Anno 1373 as long after VVilliam de Lyn An 1417 as long after Thomas Pondrell An 1427 7 yeares after Thomas Polton Anno 1590 3 yeares after Ednica Freat d An 1556 the Bishopricke of Hereford after Leoneyards death continued 4. yeares vacant An 1127 after Richaâ—d above 4 yeares Anâ— 1167 after Roâ—ert de Melim above 6 yeares An 1539 after Iohn Skip above 13 yeeres An 1585 after Herbert West failing 17 yeares An 1526 the Bishopricke of Chichester was void almost 4 yeares after Iohn Reempale his death An 1006 after Richard Fitz-Iames 2 yeaâ—es An 1235 the Bishopricke of e Rochester after â—enry de Sandâ—ords death was vaâ—â—nt 3 yeares An 1277 2 yeares aâ—â—er Walter de Merton 1316 after Thomas de Waldham 3 yeares An 1401 as long after Iohn Bolteshamâ— Anno 1535 after Iohn Fisher 2 yeares An 1557 the new created Bishopricke of Oxford after the decease of Iohn King first Bishop there was vacant 10 yeares An 1568 afâ—er Hugh Carrow the 2. Bishop it was voyd 21. yeares together An 1592 after Iohn Vnderhill the third Bishop it continued void 11. yeares so little want was there of a Bishop in that See Anâ— 1559 the new created Bishopricke of Oxford after Iames Brookes the third Bishops death was vacant three yearesâ— An 1578 as long after Edmond Cheyney An 1558 the new created Bishopricke of Bristoll after Paul Bush the first Bishop was vacant 4â— yearesâ— An 1578 3 yeares after Richard Cheyney which See continued void otherwise then by Commendani 31 yeares together Anno 1593 it continued vacant 10 yeares together So little need was there of a Bishop in this See f An 1397 the Bishopricke of St. Davids after Iohn Gilberts death was vacant 4. yeares An 1592 after Marmaduke Middleton almost 2 yeares An 1133 the Bishoprick of Landaâ—â—e upon Vrbans decease was void 6 yeares An 1183 after Nicholas ap Georgant 5 yeares An 1240 after Elias de Radnor above 4 yeares An 1287 after William de Brews 9 yeares An 1213 the Bishopricke of Bangor after Robert of Shrewsbury was vacant 2 yeares An. 1374 as long after Iohn Gilbert An 1378 after Iohn Swaffham 22 yearesâ— An 1266 after 〈◊〉 the 1 of Bangor that See was vacant two yeares An 1313 after Lewelin 6 yeares Anno 1406 after Iohn Trevane 5 yeares An 1439 after Robert 5. yeares g An 1017 after Aldhunus of Durham that See continued void above 3 yeares An 1097 as long after William Carlaypho An 1140. after Geoffry Rufus above five yeares An 1207 after Philip of Poitiers above 10 yeares An 1226. above 2 yeares the King threatning the Covent that they should have no Bishop in 7. yeares An 1237 after Richard Poore 2 yeares An 1249 the King threatned to keep it vacant 8 or 9 yeares till Ethelmare his halfe Brother whom he commended to the Monkes election should be of age An 1505 after William Severus 2 yeares An 1587. after Riâ— Baâ—nâ—s almost 2 years An 1577 the Bishoprick of Chester was vacant two years If then all our Bishoprickes in severall ages have been void thus 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 17 20 and 30 yeares or more together at divers times to omit all annuall vacancies without any prejudice to the Church or State and with great benefit to the Kings of England who enjoyed the temporalities in the meane time tâ—en certainly Bishops are no such necessary creatures of divine institution but that we may spare them all together For if we may want them 2 3 5 9 10 15 20 30 yeares without prejudice Why not an Hundred why not 500. yeares yea why not altogâ—ther as they doe in all reformed Churches who have quite cacashierd them long agoe when as no Church can spare or want their Pastors and Ministers that are of Gods institution above 6 moneths at most h After which if the Patron present not in the interim an able and sufficient Clerke the ordâ—nary by the common Law may collate and may seqnester the profits in the meane time for the officiating of the cure which must be at no time intermitted or neglected because of divine institution and so absolutely necesâ—ary which the Bishops are notâ— I shall close up this discouâ—se with a mâ—morable I resident of the Dâ—nes An Dom 1537 Christian the third King of Denmaâ—â—e removed and suppressed by publike Edict all the Bishops of his Kingdome for their intolerable Treasons Rebellions abolishing their Bishopricks as contrary to our Saviours institutions the meanes that made them Idle proud ambitious unpreaching â—relates and seditious tâ—echerous Rebels to their â—rinces and in stead of 7 Bishops of Deâ—mark he instituted 7 Superintendents to execute the office of Bishops to give orders to others and execute all Ecclesiasticall afâ—aiâ—es which 7 Superintendents Augâ—st 26 1537. â—eceived â—heir ordiâ—ation from Iohn Bugenhagius â— Pâ—otestant minisâ—er in the Cathedrall of Hâ—sina in the preseâ—ce of the King and Seâ—ate of the Kingdome Lo â—eâ—e all Bishops cashiered as false rebellious Traytors to their Soveraigne as they have ever been in all States and ages theâ—e having been more notoâ—iâ—us Traitors Rebells and conspirâ—tors of Bishops then of all other ranks of men in the world as I â—m able to maâ—e good as contrâ—ry to divine institution and see not Iure divino as they now boâ—st and Superinteâ—dents ordained by a meere â—â—esâ—iter in their stead to conferre orders unto others in all the Danish Churches In the beginning of reformation in Germany and other places Luther and other Ministers usually ordained Deacons and Ministers and set out Bookes of