« firm'd; "that is, establifh'd or ftrengthen'd by their Reconciliation and Abfolution, as other Penitents us'd to be by Impofition of Hands; or (to make the utmost of it) confirm'd in "the "Sacred Dwers" [ as the Council calls 'em] which they had before receiv'd of Meletius; that is, in fhort, no more than this, that they might be abfolv'd from the Guilt and Punishment due to the circumftantial Irregularity of being ordain'd without and against the Confent of their Metropolitan the Bishop of Alexandria, which was the Crime that attended their Ordination; for by the Ecclefiaftical Canons, no Ordinations ought to have been perform'd in his Jurifdiction without his Leave and Confent; and therefore to fecure his Authority, the Council would oblige the Perfons fo ordain'd by Meletius, to fubmit to their Metropolitan the Bishop of Alexandria, by receiving Impofition of Hands either from him or one of his Suffragans, that fo they might be confirm'd in their Sacred Orders before receiv'd, by their Abfolution from the Guilt and Punishment of their Irregularity. They were in Holy Orders before their being thus confirma; for if they were not, then they were confirm'd in Nothing, which is abfurd; for of Nothing there can be no Confirmation; and confequently thofe Perfons were in Holy Orders, before this Impofition of Hands, which was appointed to confirm them. But this is farther Evident,

4thly. Because the Council fays, upon this "Condition [of their being fo confirm's, &c.] "they may retain, keep, or continue poffefs'd of "their Preferment and Function. " This manifeftly fhews that they were in Orders before; C 4

for

for if they had no Sacred Function before this Confirming Impofition of Hands, then 'twould have been abfurd to have faid, "they may con "tinue poffefs'd of their Function;" for how can a Man continue poffefs' of that which he never had? And how can that be call'd "their Function," which never was theirs? The Decree, at the very time that it was made, calls it their Function, this was before they could fubmit to the requir'd Imposition of Hands; therefore the Function of a Bishop, a Prieft, or a Deacon, was refpectively theirs, who had been ordain'd by Meletius; theirs before this Impofition of Hands, they were in Poffeffion of it before; and therefore upon their Submiffion to their Metropolitan, they might continue poffefs'd of it.

૬

>

SIX. But Mr. Bingham fays of this Impofition of Hands, that "Valefius and Du Pin, "and other Learned Men, take" it "to imply "a new Dwination." To which I answer, what if they do take it to imply fo? is this à Proof, that it therefore was a new Ordination? Even one of thefe two Moderns, Du Pin (Ecclef. Hift. Fourth Cent. p. 251.) fays, that the Council permitted Meletius to retain "the Name of a Bifhop, and the Honour annex'd "to that Office; but it abfolutely fozbad him to "Owain any Body; it preferv'd alfo the Rank, CC Honour, and Difice of those whom he had €6 ozdain'd; provided nevertheless, that they should "be confirm'd by a more Sacred Impofition of "Hands; "this is his Relation of Matter of Fact, and then he gives you a Remark of his own upon it, "which is a Kind of Re-Di“ dination,”

dination," fays he. He modeftly supposes it to be but a Kind of Re-Ordination; and in the Note (i) there is this farther Remark, that "it is commonly thought that this Impofition " of Hands was only a Ceremony; but "Valefius has very well prov'd, that it was a ແ new Ordination, and this is the Thing which "the Word does properly fignify;" fo that Du Pin takes his Notion, that it was a Kind of Re-Ordination, only from Valefius, against whom we fee it is commonly thought Li. e. by Learned Men, for ignorant People don't think on thefe Things] that this Impofition of Hands was only a Ceremony; the Learned commonly think of this Matter differently from Valefius; and therefore tho' Valefius fuppofes it to be a new Ordination, it does not neceffarily follow that it really was fo. Is his private Opinion that it was a new Ordination, an Argument that the Council thought fo too, or appointed it as fuch? Where does this appear? The Words of the Nicene Fathers are 66 con= "firm'd by a more Sacred Impofition of Hands." Mr. Bingham fays, "confirm'd or authoziz’d; this authoriz❜d is his own, and put in by him, as if he would make it look like a new Ordination, when in Truth the Greek BelawleνTES, fignifies no more than confirm'd, establish'd, Strengthen'd, and fuch like; and therefore for him to add this Word authaziz'd, when the Greek Text has it not, looks like fomething, which, I believe, his very Friends in this Controverfy,who have any Candor and Impartiality, will not commend in him: But not to dwell too long upon that, which so palpably discovers it felf;

«tion;

"

§ X. He, with an Air of Diffidence, as if he fufpected that this Impofition of Hands was in Reality no New Ordination, fays, “Valefius and "Du Pin, &c. take it to imply a New Ordina(6 (s) however (fays he ] it cer "tainly implies a new Authority and Confirmation from the Church, &c. " He is at a Lofs how to prove this Impofition of Hands to have been a New Ordination; his Modefty will not fuffer him pofitively to affirm that it was one, and finding himself deftitute of any Proof either from the Decree it felf of the Council of Nice, or from any of the ancient Fathers, his great Knowledge in Ecclefiaftical Antiquity is at a Stand about this Matter, and fo he tells us only of a Notion of fome few Moderns, Valefius, Du Pin, &c. who take this Impofition of Hands to imply a New Ordination; but then he does not fo much confide in their Opinion, as to endeavour to defend it; no, he leaves it juft as he found it, and as if he fear'd that it could not be rely'd on, he tells us, “however, it certainly implies a new Authority and Confirmation, &c. " which is just as if he had faid thus, namely, if the Impofition of Hands implies not a New Ordination, it certainly implies “ a new Authority and Confirmation;" by which 'tis plain, he makes this fuppos'd new Autho rity, &c. to be fomething diftinct and feparate from a New Ordination; and fo he has at laft found out fomething, upon which he and we may all certainly depend; namely, that this

ἐσ

(s) Scholaft. Hift. Part II. p. 55.

which

which he calls" a new Authority and Confirma"tion from the Church, was really no New Ordination; for if it was, then the Senfe of his Words will ftand thus, "Valefius, &c. take "it to imply a New Ordination; however, i 66 certainly implies a New Ordination; "this is as good Senfe, as if he should have faid, “however, i. e. if it does not imply a New "Ordination, it certainly implies a New Or"dination; which is a Contradiction in Terms. And therefore, that Mr. Bingham may speak good Senfe, his undoubted Conclufion is this, That the Impofition of Hands here fpoken of, certainly implies [fomething which was not a new Ordination but] a Confirmation, as is plain from the Decree it felf; and then he may make as much as he pleases of his own Term, "New Authority," fo long as it was not a New Ordination. For when an Ordination is Valid, fome Circumftantials may be, and among us are, fuperadded, which Men may call New Authorities, if they please; for Inftance, after a Man has been Ordain'd a Prieft, muft, by the Canon, receive a Licenfe from the Bishop to preach; and that he may be legally poffefs'd of a Living, and canonically exercife his Function therein, without Interruption from others, and oblige the Inhabitants, the Christians of that District, to attend on his Ministrations, he must have Infticution; thefe we may call New Authorities, if we will; but 'tis plain, they are not New Ordinations, only Circumftantial Authorities given for the fake of Peace and Order. A Man Epifcopally ordain'd is in Valid Orders before his receiving any fuch New

he