urged, by a certain class of men, as an objection to smaller Dioceses.

To one examining the history of the Church, there can be no doubt, that the system of appointing a Bishop for every city has proved of immense advantage to her. A bare enumeration of these advantages is all that the length of this paper will at present permit.

1. It enabled the Bishop to remain, almost constantly, in one city, and so gave permanence and stability to his influence. Rapidity and ease of travelling does not conduce to this, but only permanence of residence. Objection is made to a Presbyter having charge of two or three scattered parishes, (and it is resorted to only under the pressure of absolute necessity,) on the ground of the loss of that influence, which a permanent residence can alone build up. Why should not the same objection be of even greater weight against too extended an Episcopal jurisdiction?

2. A second advantage arose from the Bishop being able to act as indeed a "Father," and not as a mere servant of the Presbyters, going hither and thither, at their call, to ordain, to confirm, and to consecrate Churches.

3. Cities are centres of commercial interests in the surrounding regions, and a Bishop being at each one of these fountain heads, all the resources of the Church were developed. Under our present system, we find it extremely difficult to sustain even that pitifully limited Missionary work which we have attempted. If large Dioceses have failed in this work, would it not be well to try the primitive plan of small ones? We see in those assemblages, called Convocations of Presbyters, and in the case of single parishes which have undertaken the support of Mission Churches, how much influence and power is derived from local interests. Is it not within the reach of possibility that if Dioceses were small enough to be susceptible to the influence of a strictly Apostolic Ministry, an increase in earnestness and zeal would be called forth?

4. The wise arrangement of the Early Church prevented the mutual jealousies of cities to the great detriment of her spiritual work, and the withholding of funds and united labor,

on the part of both Presbyters and Laymen. This jealousy has not as yet openly manifested itself among us, but its mutterings may even now be heard. In the Diocese of Maryland it has long since caused the constitutional stipulation, that one-half of certain Diocesan officers shall be chosen from a particular geographical portion of the Diocese. In other Dioceses the same spirit has been manifested in repeated attempts to elect, out of several equally eligible candidates, certain ones to office, mainly on the ground of their residing in a particular part of the Diocese, and in a disposition to feel aggrieved at the appointment of Committees, in that some portion of the Diocese is not represented upon them. The feeling upon which this is based, a strong attachment to local interests, is not to be undervalued. Would it not be for the best interests of the Church, at the present day, to provide for its gratification in the same manner as in the Ancient Church?

5. In general, in reference to every disturbing topic, whether of Theological opinions, or practical organizations, the Bishop could indeed act the part of a head to his Diocese, by his personal influence restoring order and true fraternal relations. But what influence can the Bishop, in a large Diocese, exercise over his Clergy, even in the chief city in which, not he, but his family resides? Next to nothing, except, it may be, over that portion which formed the party, with which, while yet a Presbyter, he was more or less distinctly identified. The cordiality with which, in some parts of the country, Clergymen, differing widely in their theological views, meet together in Convocation, shows what might be done towards the removal of party strifes, were Dioceses only small enough for the Clergy to become thoroughly acquainted with their Bishop, and the Bishop thoroughly acquainted with each one of his Clergy. It is indeed a most significant fact, that, outside of the large Dioceses, in which are large cities, we hear scarcely anything of party.

These advantages, derived from small Dioceses, plainly prove the wisdom of the Ancient Church in the rule, upon which she acted, of placing a Bishop in every city. She acted under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, Whose ways, and modes, and

rules for doing CHRIST's work, are more than a mere example to Christ's faithful disciples, in all countries and in all times. The increase and prosperity of the Church, and the extension of the Gospel among men, for which the Church was established, were thereby most effectually secured. And if, through human imperfection, we must still look for a certain degree of importance and dignity to be attached to the agent by whom such things are accomplished, and if we cannot keep our thoughts fixed solely upon the work, it may well be asked, 'Who occupies the most dignified position? Who really exercises greater personal authority ?-he who is surrounded by outward numbers, and at a distance rules by force of law and dread of punishment, (and that only with a disputed sway,) or, he who rules in the hearts of his Clergy, and guides them by the bands of love ?—he who thinks not of his own state, or of encroachments upon his rights and powers, but only of his Master's work, and the manner in which it may be most fully accomplished?' This kind of personal influence, this true, Christlike dignity, arising from the manifest occupation of heart and soul in the work of the Gospel, can best be attained in the government of small Dioceses. And as for that worldly pride, that love of outward pomp, and place, and power, the disastrous history of the Early Church teaches us, with what firmness it is to be met and resisted. We, upon these Western shores, will not, so God helping us, see that old story re-enacted. Again and again did our Blessed Lord warn and admonish His disciples as to the true nature of His Kingdom; again and again did He teach them, 'Who should be greatest' in it. Let us, with the truly primitive, Apostolic spirit, zeal, love, self-sacrifice and faith, return to the truly Apostolic model first given by Christ Himself, and kept in the mind of the Apostles by the HOLY GHOST, and then we may look for primitive success.

ART. III.-DEACONESSES, OR SISTERS.

1.-Essay on Sisterhoods in the English Church. By the Rev. E. W. SELLON. London. 1849.

2.-Two Letters on Protestant Sisterhoods. Edited by W. A. MUHLENBERG, D. D. New York. 1852.

3.-Kaiserswerth Deaconesses; including a History of that Institution, &c. By a LADY. Baltimore. 1857.

4.-Deaconesses; or Working Women in the Church. A Sermon by the Rev. C. W. RANKIN. Baltimore. 1857.

5.-Sisters of Charity and the Community of Labor. By Mrs. JAMESON. London. 1859.

WE are accustomed to think that the first three centuries of the Church's existence was the period of her truest and best life, and we constantly refer to its history for her present example and rule. Comparing the Church as she was then with her present position and work, we cannot but acknowledge that she has lost much which it would be well for her to have retained. And yet the attempt to restore some of her ancient Institutions and customs, after such a lapse of time, and with the experience of such controversies as have disturbed her, leads to suspicion and apprehension from many who seem much more acute in tracing the connection of these Institutions with modern novelties, than with primitive practice; and from many, too, who are very loud in calling for increased activity and zeal in the operations of the Church's work.

The Order of Deaconesses, or of Sisters, is one of those organizations of the Early Church, which in our Branch has been lost, and the restoration of which, while demanded with somewhat of diffidence by the few, is still attracting more general attention now-a-days, than at any period since the Reformation. We propose first to give some few facts concerning the Order of Deaconesses or Sisters in ancient and modern times; and VOL. XIV.

52*

then to present some arguments for its restoration among ourselves. It may be well, however, first to say a word or two in regard to the terms used at the head of our Article. As to the name itself, by which this working order or class shall be called, we care little. Whether they shall be known as Deaconesses, or Sisters, or Bible Readers, is of less consequence; it is the thing itself, the specific department of Christian activity, that we are after; and yet, as the term Deaconess is Scriptural, (Greek diakovos, Rom. xvi. 1,) and as it is significant, we prefer it to any other. It is requisite that they should be somewhat else than mere desultory lady visitors, on the one hand, and yet, on the other, not altogether like the members of modern conventual Sisterhoods. While not wishing to underrate the good that is done by the Sisters of Charity in the Roman Church, it is unwise to advise an imitation of this Order within our own. The hasty and indiscreet admission of members into Romish Nunneries, their perpetual vows, their constrained celibacy, their multiplication of unmeaning ceremonies, their blind obedience to authority, in violation oftentimes of their consciences, and, as a natural consequence, the immoralities which have again and again been proved, and confessed, upon them, all these make their system objectionable. The Order of Deaconesses, which we should recommend, is something like that which Dr. Muhlenberg describes as

"A community of Christian women, devoted to works of love and mercy among the poor. For the most part they form a household of themselves; that being necessary in order to their mutual sympathy and encouragement, and to their greater unity and efficiency in action. They are held together by identity of purpose, and concordance of will and feeling. Their one bond of union is simply the "Love of Christ constraining them." As long as that continues a constraining motive, cordially combining the members, the society will last. In proportion as that languishes and fails, it will decline and dissolve of its own accord."*

*The Sisterhood at St. Luke's is entirely independent of the Hospital, both as regards its organization and its means of support. Its origin dates as far back as the year 1845, under the pastor of the Church of the Holy Communion, whence it derives its name. It is simply a body of Protestant Christian women, drawn together by a common motive, and bound together by a common aim. The motive, to follow Christ more undividedly than they otherwise could-the aim, to glorify Him daily in such works of mercy as He has ever deigned to accept as tokens of grateful love. The association strongly resembles the Institution of the Lutheran Deaconesses at