“III. That instead of all former declarations and subscriptions to be made by ministers, it shall be sufficient for them that are admitted to the exercise of their ministry in the Church of England, to subscribe one general declaration and promise to this purpose, viz., that we do submit to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of England, as it shall be established by law, and promise to teach and practice accordingly.
“IV. That a new body of Ecclesiastical Canons be made, particularly with a regard to a more effectual provision for the reformation of manners both in ministers and people.
“V. That there be an effectual regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts, to remedy the great abuses and inconveniences, which by degrees, and length of time, have crept into them; and particularly, that the power of excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers, and placed in the Bishop, and not to be exercised for trivial matters, but upon great and weighty occasions.
“VI. That for the future those who have been ordained in any of the foreign Reformed Churches, be not required to be re-ordained here, to render them capable of preferment in this Church.
1689.
“VII. That for the future none be capable of any ecclesiastical benefice or preferment in the Church of England, that shall be ordained in England otherwise than by Bishops; and that those who have been ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce their former ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of the validity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, and is by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receive ordination from a Bishop in this or the like form: If thou art not already ordained, I ordain thee, &c., as in case a doubt be made of any one’s baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptized in this form, If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, &c.”[150]
COMPREHENSION.
Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrust Convocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin; Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs ought to be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offered for objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change was accomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however, considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commission should be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, to digest a scheme for “establishing a durable peace.”[151] His object was good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; for what chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming to an agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It was to renew Archbishop Williams’ Committee in 1641; it was to repeat the inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relation between Tillotson’s Committee and the Convocation was more definite than that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was of an abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers. Though Burnet had in April predicted the failure of the scheme, he in the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influenced by the Dean’s persuasion and by Burnet’s concurrence, issued, on the 13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishops and twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissioners on the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber—that old theological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare. Proceedings opened at 9 o’clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissioners present.[152] After listening to the Commission, they discussed the question, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church. Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping the old custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supported by Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawing up the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books and damnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha, yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the other hand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable, but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessons from them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church of Rome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defer their decision until a larger number should meet; to which it was replied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would be referred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon which the Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons.
1689.
The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, when Kidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authority on the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave his opinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growing weary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatly to the improvement of the whole, although the entire translation differed from the Septuagint, as well as from the original Hebrew. Nothing was determined, and the meeting broke up about 12 o’clock.