The subject of Ordination occupied the members through four successive meetings.[156] Questions were discussed--first in reference to those who had been Ministers of other communions; secondly, with regard to new candidates; and thirdly, as to the ceremony of conferring orders. The Bishop of Salisbury took a prominent part in this debate, on the first of these points, contending--that there was room to challenge the orders of the Romanists, “because that they ordained without imposition of hands,” and without the words, “whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted,” and mixed up the matter with the theory of intention--that the Church of England had allowed the orders of Foreign Churches in the case of Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury--that Presbyterians had been consecrated Bishops of the Scotch Church without being first ordained as Priests; James I. stiffly insisting upon it, being present at their consecration in Westminster Abbey; Bishop Andrewes, after having opposed it, also yielding assent to the service. As to Dissenters, Burnet strove to apply to their case the allowed validity of Donatist ordination in the early Church, on the ground of necessity for the healing of schism. But it was on the Conservative side objected, that Romanist orders were owned by the Anglican Church, the Bishop of London admitting that no question arose about the validity of Roman Catholic orders, but only about the sufficiency of evidence as to their being properly conferred. Beveridge, in this debate as in others, distinguished himself by maintaining Anglican views, and showed that if cheats were put upon the Church by Romanists, so they might be by the Reformed; yet he admitted, in reference to the case of Du Moulin, that regular Episcopal ordination is not necessary, where no cure of souls is involved; upon which the Dean of Canterbury affirmed that he had heard even of laymen having been made Prebendaries. Beveridge met the case of the Donatists by pointing out that they were Episcopalians, and therefore in point of orders did not present any resemblance to Nonconformists. [Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] Two passages in the report of the proceedings are well worthy of attention. “It was sometimes queried, What good would this do as to the Dissenters? It was answered by Dr. Still:[157] We sat there to make such alterations as were fit, which would be fit to make were there no Dissenters, and which would be for the improvement of the service.” “It was said, I think by Dr. F., that some of the Nonconformists desired to be heard. It was replied by Dr. Still: That was not to be allowed, because doubtless they had no more to say by word of mouth than they had in their writings; and, that they might do them justice, there were several of their books laid before the Committee, that they might consult if there be occasion.” [Sidenote: 1689.]