Church, and this led to the establishment of the Diaconate and the special reservation to themselves by the Apostles of the duties of prayer and the ministry of the Word (ch. vi. 1-8). The new Order, however, shared in the work of preaching; specially Stephen (vs. 9, 10), who was arrested and placed before the council (vs. 11-15). Then follows St. Stephen's most characteristic speech (ch. vii. vs. 1-53), and glorious martyrdom (vs. 54– 60). Out of the change in the interior organization grew this first martyrdom, and then the persecution (ch. viii. 1–3), which, without broaking up the Church, drove those who were active in the work of conversion to the third step in her work. The deacon Philip goes down to Samaria, and there (vs. 4-13) gathers in many of the Samaritans, but as yet no Gentile was admitted. Since only the Apostles could confirm, the College of Apostles sent SS. Peter and John down to give them the HOLY GHOST by the laying on of hands (vs. 14-84), and took the opportunity (v. 25) to preach in the neighboring Samaritan villages. Then follows the sending Philip to gather in the first convert for Africa (vs. 26-40). Then (ch. ix.) succeeds the narrative of St. Paul's conversion (vs. 1-22) his escape from the Jews, who lay in wait for him (vs. 23-31). St. Peter's mission work in lower Syria (vs. 32-43) brought him to Joppa, whence he was called to fulfill his work part in laying the foundation of the Church for the Gentiles by the baptism of the centurion Cornelius (ch. x.).

This brought on the second dissension within the Church (ch. xi. 1-18), which was settled by St. Peter's account. Henceforth, whatever temporary or local prejudice there might be, there was no contention about it. But this work was transferred, as soon as it began to be important, to Barnabas, who soon took Saul to labor with him (vs. 19-30). St. James's martyrdom and the imprisonment of St. Peter follow in the narrative (ch. xii. 1-19), which, however, soon reverts to Barnabas and Saul. But the Church has overstepped her narrow bounds. The mission, by command of the HOLY GHOST, of Barnabas and Saul to their work (ch. xiii. 1-3) inaugurates a new work. Henceforth, while the Jews are first appealed to, the Gentiles have the Gospel preached to them. This first missionary journey beyond the limits of Syria (chs. xiii. 4; xiv.) was important in its results, but really it led the way to greater changes. Saul becomes Paul, and is the leading speaker. Ch. xv. records the third and last struggle within the Church. The Judaic party made their last resistance upon circumcision. This was also settled; and now whatever bickering might arise, the policy of the Church was settled by this Council at Jerusalem in its Encyclical.

From this time forward the narrative is of St. Paul alone with the company he gathered about him (ch. xv. 36-99). But there is also a significant change in the policy of carrying forward the Gospel. St. Paul

does not trust to his personal influence and constant supervision, nor pause for minute attention to comparatively unimportant fields. That is trusted in true faith to his companions, or to those chosen out of the new converts to be their ministers. He seeks centres and influential towns with the instinct of a general who plans his strategy and leaves tactical dispositions to his trusty subordinates. Only in Corinth and in Ephesus did he make voluntarily any long stay, and both were most important posts for the Church to hold firmly. His first journey is recited in chs. xiii. and xiv. His second in chs. xv. 86; xviii. 23. His third journey is recounted in chs. xviii. 26; xxi. 14. His labors are henceforth from a prison or a guard-house, ever in the presence of, if not chained to, a soldier, or else upon a stormdriven ship, till he is at last permitted, though a state prisoner, to dwell in his own hired house through two quiet years. These last chapters (from ch. xiii. to the end) are most precious to us Gentiles. With the direction of our LORD clearly set before us, they are the only record of the fulfillment of His command. This Book of the Acts, then, bears upon its front the stamp of consistent truthfulness. It is a faithful account, scrupulously accurate, of the chief and to us most important facts connected with the Apostolic founding, nurture, organization, and proclamation of the Church as the Body of CHRIST, which He purchased with His own blood. Its title, "The Practice of the Apostles," gives with concise clearness its purpose. When we question it we find that it gives us the Threefold order,-Apostles, Presbyters, Deacons. It sets before us the Sacrament of Baptism; the necessity of Confirmation; the daily celebration of the Communion; the observance of the LORD's Day. In it we learn the true Financial policy of the Church; the Apostolic authority for Episcopal visitation; the tone and policy of our missionary work; the power of sermons; the use of forms of prayer. In it is given us naturally, incidentally as a part of the narrative, the usages or practice of those who had the mind of CHRIST, and who had been instructed by Him for the forty days He was with them in the things pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven.

This, as with every other book of the Scripture, has been subjected to the wildest, vaguest criticism, which is best replied to by pointing out that, as in so many other cases, the critics cannot agree upon any one common ground. Its text, which, of course, was copied out by writers in successive ages, has undergone some mutilation, and some slight variations have crept in, but there is nothing to throw the slightest shadow of doubt upon its genuineness or its inspiration. Nor is there any material variation in the best critically restored form of the text that can affect the sense of our Authorized Version.

Adiaphoristic Controversy. (Adiaphora,

or things indifferent.) A dispute which

arose and continued for some time between the followers of Luther and of Melancthon about the traditions and ceremonies of the Church. Melancthon was disposed to surrender them as indifferent for the sake of peace and unity. The chief opponent in the controversy was the Hebrew professor at Wittenberg, Illyrius Flaccus.

Adjuration. The binding of, or solemn appeal to, a person by an invocation of the Divine name, as the High-Priest to our LORD: "I adjure Thee by the living Gon that Thou tell us whether Thou be the CHRIST the SON OF GOD." To this adjuration our LORD, hitherto silent, at once replied. Adjuration was a part of the form of exorcism which anciently was the precedent office to baptism.

Administration. The performance of a duty, or office, or function. It is used several times in the Prayer-book, as in the title to the Office of the Holy Communion, the prayer for those to be ordained, and in the Ordinal. In ecclesiastical law it refers to the distribution of the effects of intestates.

Admonition. Advice or warning. A word used to assert the advisory authority of a Bishop over his clergy, when they promise to follow with a glad mind his godly admonition. But it is also in the charge to the priest at his ordination. It is, however, now used in a harsher sense, meaning the first step of warning, which, if persistently rejected, must lead on to excommunication; following St. Paul's direction, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus iii. 10).

Admonition, Godly. The earliest form of an examination of a candidate for orders during the process of ordination is found in an Ordinal of the eleventh century, though questions were asked of Bishops, at the time of their consecration, at an earlier period. The questions propounded in our Ordinal are peculiar to the English service, and were framed by the reformers of our Liturgy in 1549-50. They seem, as Palmer has said, "to have been modeled in a great degree after the parallel formularies used in the ordination of Bishops." The last question is probably the most ancient of them all, and is found in manuscript Ordinals, written eight hundred years ago, where it is placed in exactly the position which it holds in our service, at the beginning. In the English Prayer-book the phrase used is, "Will you reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief ministers ?" The Ordinary, according to Canon Law, is the Bishop, and the "other chief ministers" are such officers as are established by law,-the Archdeacon, Dean, or Commissary of the Bishop. But in our Ordinal is inserted after "chief ministers" the words, "who according to the Canons of the Church may have the charge over you." The reason of this change is found in the fact that on the introduction of the Episco

pate into this country, it was not deemed best at that time to introduce those other offices and titles, such as Archdeacons, Deans, and Rural Deans, which have so long existed in England. It will be noticed that the only chief ministers other than the Bishop whose admonitions and judgment the Deacon and Priest are to follow are those who are invested with such authority by the "Canons of the Church." This must mean the Canons of this Church, because the Canons of the English Church recognized these several offices and dignities; and its use here was evidently to restrict this vow of obedience to those whom the American branch of the Church by its Canons might appoint over

them.

The only chief ministers recognized by our Canons as invested with any governing or controlling authority are those elected by the several Standing Committees, which Standing Committees, under certain circumstances, exercise "the powers and duties to be performed by a Bishop." For in case there is a vacancy in the Episcopate, the Standing Committee is the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese for all purposes declared in the Canons of the Church. And this authority is exercised by them when acting in their corporate capacity as members of that committee. There is but little doubt that the phraseology of the question was so framed in order to meet just such a development as is now seen in some of the dioceses where the Cathedral and Decanal institutions and usages obtain more or less, and which, perhaps, it was conjectured might in the future, in the great growth of the Church, arise as a practical necessity.

Confining ourselves simply to the American Ordinal, what is promised here? Reverent obedience; conformity to godly admonitions; submission to godly judgment-of the "Bishop and other chief ministers who, according to the Canons of the Church, may have the charge and government over you." But here the question arises, What is meant by the phrases "godly admonition; godly judgment"? This must be interpreted by the tenor of the office in which the terms are found, and by the general usage and explanation of it in recognized authorities. It is that admonition and that judgment which as a reverend father in GOD in the fullness of his Episcopal office he delivers in questions of conduct and duty in carrying out the provisions of the Church's law and worship. It is an "admonition" delivered in the fear of GOD, to whom the Bishop is amenable for all his acts, in reference to some course or practice which the Bishop, acting as an authorized ruler in GOD'S house, deems wrong. It is a "judgment" made in the fear of GOD, and with a full recognition of his being judged of GOD; as to the right or wrong, the propriety or impropriety of some act or ceremony which, in the estimation of the Bishop, contravenes the letter or the spirit of the promise of

conformity to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

It is not meant that a godly admonition or a godly judgment should be a perfectly holy and perfectly just admonition or judgment such as GOD Himself would give, because the admonition and judgment, being human, must necessarily partake of human infirmity and imperfection. Neither does it mean that such an admonition or judgment will be such as shall be sustained by process of law, because decisions of law are ever varying both in time and place, and the conflict of laws is a fact recognized by the most eminent jurists.

Neither does it mean that such an admonition and judgment shall always be wise and productive, for as "to err is human," so Bishops are not exempt from such errancy, and with the most devout aspirations and earnest endeavors to do right they may yet miss the marks of wisdom and prudence. But it does mean that when a Bishop under the realizing sense of his consecration vows to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word," and "both privately and openly call upon and encourage others to do the same," and "diligently exercise such discipline as by the authority of GOD's Word and by the order of this Church is commended to Him ;" does, on questions of conduct which he believes to be reprehensible or on points of ritual of doubtful interpretation and authority, give his official admonition and judgment touching these things, it is the duty of the clergy to reverently obey such godly admonition and submit themselves to such godly judgment. Yet this submission to obedience does not debar them the privilege or weaken the duty. of testing the right of the clergy to their course and views by the process of Canon Law. For such admonition and judgment but takes the place of a temporary injunction in civil law, whereby a course of conduct is arrested and made stationary until judicial decision shall be had in the premises. So in these cases, if the clergyman feels aggrieved by the admonition of the Bishop or that he has been wronged by the judgment, he has redress in law. The ecclesiastical courts are open to him, and questions of fact, of interpretation, of issue, can be then and there settled.

Bishop Mant, in his "Discourses upon the Church and Her Ministrations," says in reference to these words: "The rule and limits of the respect and deference due may be judged to be that in all matters of spiritual or ecclesiastical concern, in all matters which affect the welfare of religion or of the Church, it is the duty of the clergy to comply with the advice and to acquiesce in the decision of their Ordinary, unless his authority be suspended by a paramount or superior power. If the Law of GOD or the law of the country clearly and indisputably prescribe a different course, their

authority surpasses that of the Bishop and ought to be preferred. If neither of these authorities clearly interferes with it, then I apprehend they concur in sustaining and supporting it, and it becomes the duty of the clergy to follow with a glad mind and will the admonition of their lawful governor, though abstractedly their inclinations may lead them in a different course, and to submit their judgment to the judgment of their official superior, though abstractedly they may not be convinced of the correctness of his decision." (The Church and Her Ministrations, p. 236.) "It may be noted also," says Dean Comber, "that the candidates promise gladly to obey, that is, readily and willingly, without murmuring or too nice disputing, unless the thing enjoined be notoriously evil; for to be very scrupulous proceeds from the pride of inferiors and tends to overthrow the superior's authority. Yet this doth not give superiors any unlimited powers to command anything that is evil, for they only promise to obey their godly admonitions, so that such as govern in the Church must take heed they do not | enjoin anything but that which is either good in itself or apparently tends to promote piety and virtue and is not evil." (On the Ordination Offices, p. 214.) Canon James (Comment on the Ordination Services, p. 270) says "The Episcopal admonition which the clergy are to follow, and the like judgments to which they are to submit themselves, must be 'godly admonitions' and 'godly judgments. Now this caution by which the vow is accompanied, like every other cautionary counsel and guarded command given by the Church, is used not as doubting either the godliness of the Bishop or the due obedience of his clergy, but because this or any other vow is required to be solemnly made, and because all the services, and particularly the ordination services, are written as unto fallible men, and there can be no sound legislation either in Church or State where all is not based on this principle. The framers, therefore, of these services wisely so acted. They remembered that St. Paul scrupled not to avow of himself that he was a man of like passions, as well with those he ordained as with those among whom he ministered. A frank avowal this that he was liable to error. It is only in this view of the case that the term can be considered appropriate, for to suppose that the admonitions of a Bishop to be other than godly would appear impossible, and it is equally impossible to conceive otherwise of his judgment in matters of religion than that it should be godly according to the written Word of God declared in His Gospel and adopted by the Church."

The venerable Bishop White, in his "Comment on the Ordination Offices," a book unanimously approved by the whole House of Bishops in 1833, speaking of these promises, after stating that these "godly admonitions must have respect to some standard by

which they are directed, and that this standard must be the various established institutions of the Church and not the private opinions of the Bishop," he adds, "that injudicious or even impertinent interference is possible ought not to be denied, and cannot be justified." But there are two descriptions of cases in which no such censure is applicable. One is where an offense against morals, the other where an offense against order is the subject. In either of these cases indeed the admonition of the Bishop would be unseasonable unless the offense were notorious and admitted, because he would be in danger of making himself an accuser when he is appointed to be a judge. But if either of the species of offense is acknowledged by the offending party, and especially if it be justified and persevered in, then is here claimed to the Bishop the right in question, not only on the ground of ecclesiastical law, but on that of the consent of the party in the answer to the question last read, which may be considered as a personal contract binding him to submission under reproof for past fault, and to amendment under exhortation relative to the time to come.

When, therefore, a Bishop acting as a Father in GOD of a family over which the HOLY GHOST has made him overseer, moved by an honest and zealous love for GOD's truth, and sustained by the specific decisions of the established and recognized Ecclesiastical tribunals of the Church of England, a Church from which ours has not departed "in any essential point of Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship," and by the decisions and Canons of our own Church, issues his admonition and gives his judgment upon questions of usage and ritual, especially when the points objected to are innovations upon the established services of this Church, as carried on since its foundation nearly a century ago, such admonitions and judgment are those recognized by the Ordinal as godly. They proceed from godly motives, are directed to godly ends, and concern things pertaining to the worship of GOD in His Holy Temple.

To disobey, then, is an act of self-will and subversive of all authority. In the case of a Deacon, we see at once that subordination to the Presbyter which makes that Presbyter, specially the one under whom he serves, one of the chief ministers set over him, to whose admonitions and judgment he must conform himself as a true Diaconos; and if to a Presbyter set over him in a particular parish or missionary station, much more to his Bishop, to whose direction and authority he is canonically bound.

RT. REV. WM. BACON STEVENS, D.D., Bishop of Pennsylvania. Adonai. One of the titles of GOD (q. v.); My LORD. It was pronounced by the Jews for the word JEHOVAH, which was only uttered by the priests in the sanctuary when blessing the people (Numb. vi. 22),

and by the High-Priest on the Day of Atonement when before the mercy-seat. The true pronunciation was said to be lost. The Jews refuse, generally, to utter the "Incommunicable Name," and for it substituted the phrase Shem Hammephorash, i.e., the name of four letters, Yod He Vav He. The Alexandrian translators of the Scriptures into Greek (Septuagint) used the word Kyrios as its equivalent, and thus it passed into the New Testament as the title of our LORD. The word Adon, LORD, is found in many names, as in Adonijah, Adonizebek, Nebuchadon-ezer, and in Greek mythology the Syrian Adon is Adonis.

Adoption. A term of Roman law which St. Paul used to express the relation of the Christian to his heavenly Father. The Roman law ran thus: "When aliens were to be taken into a family or into the place of children, the ceremony was either before a prætor or before the people. If it were done through the prætor it was called adoption." The parallel is accurate. Our adoption is not created by our will or choice, but is by the gift of GOD. We may choose whether we shall accept it, but it is still His gift, and not ours by any claim or merit. It is granted to us in and through our LORD JESUS CHRIST, therefore by His incarnation and the grace thereby accruing to the human race from Him. It is conveyed in baptism, and reversing the order of the verses, "As many of you as have been baptized into CHRIST have put on CHRIST” (v. 27); "For ye are all the children of GOD by faith in CHRIST JESUS" (v. 26), and then "And if ye be CHRIST's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. iii. 29); and the Apostle proceeds in his argument (ch. iv. 4-7): "But when the fulness of the time was come, GoD sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, GOD hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of GOD through CHRIST." So, too, in the Apostle's argument in the eighth chapter of Romans. St. Paul uses the word adoption in Rom. viii. 15, 23, ix. 4; Gal. iv. 5; and Ephesians i. 5.

Adoptionist. Heresy. A heresy which taught that CHRIST was not the Son of GOD by His eternal generation, but by adoption. It was broached as early as the later Arian controversies, 380 A.D., but did not take a distinct shape, though combated by the early fathers (as Ambrose, Gregory, Naz. Ep. ad Cled., i.), till the eighth century, and in Spain, Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, Bishop of Urgel. It was probably hit upon by Elipandus as a theory to conciliate the Mohammedans among whom his province was placed. Felix was a subject of Charlemagne. They taught that CHRIST JESUS as man was adopted,

though as the Word of GOD eternally begotten, thus practically dividing the Person of CHRIST, for they denied that the man CHRIST JESUS from the beginning of His Incarnation perfectly united with the Word the eternal and only-begotten SON of GOD. It was but another form of Nestorianism. Several theologians at once combated it, as Beatus and Bishop Etherius, of Osma, but Charlemagne sent for Alcuin, who refuted the heresy in several works and letters written both to Felix and to Elipandus, founding his argument not only upon the opposing silence of Scripture, but upon the contradiction in the nature of the Unity of Person in CHRIST, that He could be the SON of GOD by nature and the SON of GOD by adoption. His two natures cannot make Him two Sons, for they are perfectly conjoined in His one Person.

Felix recanted his heresy at the Council at Ratisbon, 792 A.D., but was sent to Rome by Charlemagne, where he had to make a second still more formal abjuration of his error in full orthodox terms, but when he regained his diocese he relapsed. Being summoned anew, and his tenets condemned at Frankfort (796 A.D.), he sought refuge with Elipandus within the Mohammedan rule. Adoptionism was again condemned at Friule (796 A.D.).

The heresy was condemned again at Aixla-Chapelle, 799 A.D., and was abjured by Felix, but Elipandus steadily adhered to it to the last. They sought in vain to prove their error by appeals to the Liturgy, which appeals are valuable to us now as settling the date of parts of the Mozarabic Liturgy.

Adoration. A synonym for devout, reverent worship. Its origin is from the Latin manus ad os mittere, to put the hand to the mouth in token of silent awe. It is used exclusively to mean the worship paid to GOD, and is in act both outward and inward; outward in such kneeling or bowing and singing or speaking words of praise; interior, of the heart and mind in such devout affections as raise the soul in adoring thought. The outward is empty form if it be not conjoined and informed by the interior adoration, which make it acceptable as a personal offering to GOD.

Adultery. Criminal intercourse of a married person of either sex with another of the other sex, whether married or not. The moral sin of adultery is implied in the inspired words with which Adam received Eve, and is set forth in the Seventh Commandment. CHRIST confirmed the binding force of Adam's declaration in emphatic terms (Mark x. 6-9), and expounded the force of the Commandment in His Sermon

LORD'S forgiveness of the guilty woman (John viii. 11) is taken as a mitigation of the death-sentence under the Mosaic dispensation; but the guilt of it, both as to the moral and spiritual death of the sinning ones, and as to the sin against society, is not thereby extenuated, and the severest enactments have always stood upon the Church's Canon Law against the guilty parties. This and fornication are the only causes allowed by our LORD to justify divorce. It is a sin that is absolutely heinous in the sight of GOD and in His Law. But moral theologians sometimes distinguish between degrees of heinousness in reference to the destructive results to society. A petition against the sin stands in the English Prayer-book in the Litany, which petition has been softened by hardly equivalent phrases in the American form.

Advent. There is no certainty of the date when the season of Advent was appointed. The early Sacramentary of Leo I. does not mention any Sundays in Advent. The Comes of St. Jerome, and later the Sac ramentary of Gelasius I. (496 A.D.), ascribe Collects, Epistles, and Gospels to five Sundays in Advent. These documents are probably much interpolated. But Maximus of Tours (450 A.D.) makes the earliest certain mention of Advent, and Cæsarius of Arles (501-42 A.D.) has left the first set of Advent sermons we have (those ascribed to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine are spurious). In the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Liturgies the Advent season dates from St. Martin's day (November 11), and includes forty days, which were accounted as a lesser fast among the religious. But the first of these five Sundays was really counted as preceding the Sundays in Advent, so that there were only four Sundays counted. The Gallican Church (Maçon, 581 A.D.) ordered Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to be observed as fasts in Advent, but the rule was disregarded. In the Prereformed English Uses, as in the Gallican and Mozarabic Rites, we find special Epistles and Gospels for these days. The observance of Advent in the Greek Church was probably much later, for Balsamon (1200 A.D.) says "the others (besides the Lenten fast), as the fast of the Nativity, are each of seven days only. Those monks who fast forty days, viz., from St. Philip (September 14), are bound to this by their rule. Such laics as do the like are to be praised therefor."

Advowson. The right, in England, of patronage to a church or an ecclesiastical benefice, and he who has the right of Advowson is called the Patron of the Church, from his obligation to defend the rights of the Church from oppression and violence. For when lords of manors first built churches upon their own demesnes and appointed the tithes of these manors to be paid to the officiating ministers which were before given to the clergy in common, the lord who thus built a church and endowed it