is, "ye shall be as gods," and earth and Eve's own children have groaned in consequence for six thousand years. Have our reformers realized how exactly they are playing over again the part of the Serpent and his victim in Eden? "Ye shall be as gods, to know good and evil." That is the temptation now, "ye shall be emancipated," and obtain your "rights," and rise in the scale of being, and act for yourselves as men in the affairs of the world, and "know good and evil." Woman certainly will know a good deal of evil that she does not now, when she becomes at home on platform, and stump, and in court room, and jury box, with what effect on her womanhood, imagination may conceive.

The whole movement for the masculinization of woman bears the marks, to a remarkable degree, of a hasty, ill-considered, popular tide of feeling and practice rather than thought, prompted by immediate apparent advantage, and the gush of pleasing sentiment. In seasons of religious revival, or when distinctive revival hopes rule the hour, Christians come under the sway of feeling to an unusual degree, and that so associated with the thought, and perhaps the fact of the agency of the Holy Spirit, that they scarcely dare to hold the reins. To yield to feeling is sweet. Error, and even sin, often comes in, introduced by that which is innocent and fair. But in the shadow of Flatterwell, to assail poor Parley, lurked an hundred robbers.

The eagerness of some men to call out the "fairy forms," and "sweet voices" of the "sisters" upon the religious stage, has been called, it is said, on the highest progressive authority, an "aberration of amativeness." I do not discuss the propriety of the term. But it is possible that if the psychology of the whole movement could be explored, there would appear more to move to pity than is sometimes supposed.

A late writer occupies twelve solid pages in drawing out the single idea that woman, having been held in early and barbarous times substantially as a slave, had gained a slowly expanding liberty, under the influence of Christianity and advancing civilization, until the present hour. Ergo, she must throw off restraint more and more. Were the ground that has been entrenched on the conservative side, to be traversed by

our opponents with the same freedom and license of motion displayed in the case now mentioned, a small library would be composed of the books that should be written. But the answer may be more brief. The progress of Christian society in the past in a given direction does not prove that further progress in the same direction is required, since it is possible that we have already reached, possibly passed, on that line, the golden mean of true wisdom. Thus in the relation of children to parents, in that of crime to the administration of justice, in that of subjects to government, and in that of free thinking to intellectual authority, there has been a similar progress, throughout Christendom, and in the same direction. Yet most men would agree that with large numbers of the human race at least, the progress in these cases has gone quite far enough, sometimes too far. So I think it is with the freedom of woman. And inasmuch as the writer in question. left that point unguarded, his twelve pages were not of material value.

In conclusion, let me ask two or three questions of my brethren of progressive sympathies, which I would fain hope might be considered somewhat thoughtfully.

(1) Do you believe that mere virtue, without the fine, choice delicacy and modesty that makes woman, to the apprehension of every true man, sacred, is sufficient for the highest charm. and influence, of the female character?

(2) If not, do you believe that a woman can play the part of a man in public, through her lifetime, and retain those finer characteristics above named?

(3) And do you believe that a woman can be taught and induced to sacrifice those attributes habitually, on the religious stage, for Christ, and at the same time retain them in other than religious fields of thought and action?

(4) Do you think that religion ought on any pretense of apparent present usefulness, to coarsen, and degrade, and deface the finest, and most exquisitely beautiful, and captivating attributes of female character?

(5) Do you believe that souls will be saved, in the end, by such a course?

ARTICLE VIII.-THE EASTERN CHURCH.

THE term "Eastern" as applied to a portion of the Christian Church, is, primarily, neither geographical nor characteristic, but historical. Its use dates back to the division of the Roman Empire, when it was applied to those churches that existed within the borders of the eastern portion of that empire, and which continued to exist even after its downfall. The Eastern Church then includes those churches that are the lineal descendants of the churches of the Eastern Roman Empire, together with those that have become connected with them.

If this distinction be kept in mind, much of the vagueness that has gathered around the term will be dispelled. That it is not geographical will be readily seen, for two of its largest divisions, Russia and Abyssinia, can hardly be said to belong to the "East." Neither is it characteristic of certain peculiar qualities, as synonymous with Oriental, for in modern use Oriental has come to mean Asiatic, and calls to mind Persian, Arabic, Turkish, anything but Russian or Slavic. So, too, to call it the Greek Church, as is often done, is incorrect, for the Greeks anathematize the Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites, &c., and no statement of the Eastern Church would be complete that should not include them.

To give as clear an idea as possible of this great section of the Christian Church, in its extent, and its distinguishing characteristics, is the object of this paper.

I. Its extent:

1. Ancient; 2. Modern.

1. Ancient; a. Within the limits of the Roman Empire; b. Outside of those limits.

a. Within the limits of the Roman Empire.-The only definite boundary of the Eastern Empire was that which separated it from the Western, and extended from the junction of the Save with the Danube, directly south to Barca on the north coast of Africa. On the north, the Danube and Black Sea formed a natural boundary which, however, was overstepped

at times, if not by actual rule, yet by influence, so that the barbaric tribes along their shores acknowledged the general sovereignty of the Roman emperors. On the east the boundary varied very greatly at different times. At the division of the empire, it extended in a devious line, from the southeast extremity of the Black Sea, skirting Lake Van, to the Gulf of Akaba. Beyond this, however, the provinces of Armenia Major, including Georgia, Assyria beyond Arbela, and Mesopotamia to the Persian Gulf, acknowledged at different times the Roman rule, and may for the present purpose be fairly included within the bounds of the empire. On the south the great deserts of Arabia and Africa formed another natural boundary, interrupted only by the valley of the Nile, where Roman power was recognized as far as Berenice and the lesser Cataracts. It will thus be seen that the Eastern Roman Empire covered almost exactly the territory at present under the sway of the Turkish Sultans, including Greece and excluding Arabia. This territory was divided politically into six dioceses, Dacia (Eastern Illyricum), Thrace, Pontus, Asia, the Orient, and Egypt. Dacia and Thrace divided the European portion. Dacia, including Greece and the part immediately north, as far as the Danube, and Thrace the remainder, to the Bosphorus. Pontus embraced the upper part of the Asiatic portion north of a line drawn from Cyzicus on the Marmora to the Euphrates, north of Edessa (Oorfa). Asia took in southwest Asia Minor, west of Cilicia and Isauria. The Orient covered Syria,including Palestine,-and Mesopotamia.

To Egypt were left the African provinces. These political divisions were strictly followed in the organization of the Church, and each diocese was under the ecclesiastical rule of an exarch or archbishop, who had under him the metropolitans of the various subdivisions. Five of these exarchs became Patriarchs, and divided among themselves the various dioceses.

The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed Dacia, Thrace, and Pontus. To the Patriarch of Ephesus was given Asia. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem divided the Diocese of the Orient, and the Patriarch of Alexandria had Egypt for his portion. Subsequently the Diocese of Asia was transferred to or amalgamated by Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Ephesus ceased to be more than a metropolitan.

Of these four Patriarchates, that of Constantinople with its four Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thrace, and Dacia, was the most important, not simply from its extent, but from the character and influence of its ecclesiastics.

The exarch of Pontus resided at Cesarea in Cappadocia, and had under him thirteen metropolitans and one hundred and eight bishops. Among the metropolitans were those of Sebaste (Sivas), Ancyra (Angora), Amasia, Nicomidia, and Nicea: among the bishops, those of Nyssa, Nazianzum, Trapezus (Trebizond), Chalcedon, and Brusa. Under the exarch of Asia, resident at Ephesus, were twelve metropolitans and three hundred and fifty-one bishops. Among the metropolitans were those of Laodicea, Sardis, Rhodes, Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, and Iconium; among the bishops, those of Pergamus, Smyrna, Ilium, Troas, Colossae, Dorrylaeum, Philadelphia, Thyatira, Halicanassus, and the various islands of the Cyclades.

Under the Exarch of Thrace, resident at Heraclea, were five metropolitans and eighty-two bishops. Of these, few were of any especial note except the Exarch himself, who maintained the high though merely honorary title of First, of the Most Illustrious, and Exarch of all Thrace and Macedonia, and who held the privilege of consecrating the Patriarch of Constantinople, which privilege he still keeps, the Metropolitan of Cesarea being next in position to him.

Connected with this diocese; were the sees of Scythia and the barbaric tribes, which acknowledged Roman supremacy. There was a metropolitan residing at Tomi in Little Scythia, the province included between the Black Sea and the Danube, where it flows to the north, and five bishops in the Crimea, though it seems impossible to locate them exactly.

In the Diocese of Dacia (Eastern Illyricum), under the Exarch of Thessalonica, there were eight metropolitans and one hundred and sixty-nine bishops. Among the metropolitans were those of Larissa, Corinth, Dyrrhachium, and Sardica; among the bishops, those of Cenchrea, Athens, Argos, Lacedaemon, Marathon, Thebes, and Ithaca. Total number of metropolitans in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, thirtyeight, of bishops, seven hundred and ten.