great majority saw the crying need for service which they could render; they saw regulations as regards the service of the State broken down; they were called to undertake work of which beforehand no one would have thought them capable, in order to help their country in its dire need. But the Church was as unyielding as ever, and yet the Church's need of their services was and remains great and urgent. It is not only that women long to serve the Church, but that a living Church cannot in these difficult days dispense with their services. As latent and unexpected capacities were discovered in them by which they could help the State, so, if only the Church will have the courage to make a fuller use of their services, new sources of spiritual power will be opened up. The State could not do without them during the war against its enemies; can the Church afford to refuse to employ their full service in its war against the evil forces in the world?

The National Mission made much use of them both on its councils and in its actual work. They were called upon to address meetings large and small on religious subjects, in crowded schoolrooms and parish halls; but in the beautiful parish churches which stood empty near by, and which would have provided the space and the devotional atmosphere so much to be desired, their voices were not allowed to be heard. It would have seemed possible to make experiments at least during the National Mission, and some Bishops were willing to do so, but it was known that certain sections of the Church would refuse to take any part in the Mission if women were allowed to speak in consecrated buildings. Therefore it was thought better to refuse permission; and in some cases permission, once given, was withdrawn. Some of these women knew, or at least their friends knew, that they could speak as well and had as living a message as the majority of the men missioners. Many, both men and women, believed that their co-operation was indispensable to the work of the Mission. Every one knew how short-handed the clergy were, owing to the absence of so many with the army. Here was help both ready and efficient, which was only partially used.

The majority of women, of course, submitted without questioning. Others were driven to think out the whole

matter anew. Some felt deeply rebellious; and rebels are seldom wise and moderate. Rebellion and discontent led to new thought on the subject. There were some bold enough to ask why the priesthood should be closed to women. At first they asked for nothing more than that the subject should be discussed, and adequate reasons given, if there were such, why it was impossible for women to be priests. But only to ask the question roused an outcry at its iniquity. Even those who had taken a prominent part in claiming the suffrage for women refused to discuss the question at all, apparently because they considered that the matter had once for all been settled by the immemorial custom of the Church. Such an attitude will not satisfy the eager, thinking younger generation. They see everything in a condition of flux and change; they have been led to believe in a continuous revelation and in a development of the truth to meet the needs of the age. To be checked and baffled only increased the number and claims of the rebels. We cannot be certain, but probably very few would ask or wish that the priesthood should be opened to women at present. But there are many who would wish the question to be seriously discussed; and there is an increasing number of both men and women who would like to see more opportunity given to women to use their teaching and prophetic gifts.

The desire of women for an increasing share in the administrative work of the Church has been recognised by the position given to them in parochial and other councils under the Enabling Bill. Here they have been placed on an equality with the rest of the laity. The Archbishop of Canterbury showed his understanding of the situation and his sympathy with the desire for further light on the subject, by the appointment in 1917 of a committee to report on the sanctions and restrictions which govern the ministrations of women in the life of the Church.' This inquiry, however, was to be purely historical in character; and the committee was not asked to make any recommendations.

The committee has brought together all that is known about the past history of the Order of Deaconesses, but their work and position in the Early Church does not throw much light on the present situation. We learn

that there is no clear evidence as to their existence in the first centuries after the apostolic age, though it has been generally accepted that the Phoebe of the Epistle to the Romans was a deaconess and that she and other women shared in the work of 'serving tables.' Bishop Lightfoot has said that Phoebe 'is as much a deaconess as Stephen or Philip is a deacon.' But this does not really go far, since the exact functions of a deacon at that time are not known. Besides deaconesses there were in the Early Church widows and virgins' specially appointed to care for the sick and poor belonging to the congregation. In the Eastern Church there was a revival of the order of deaconesses in the third century, their special work being to assist at the baptism of women. In the sixth century they are heard of in the West, but they do not appear to have ever been as numerous there as in the East. It seems clear that they were specially ordained to their office, but neither in the East nor the West was their position identical with that of the deacon; only among the Nestorians were they allowed to assume the functions of deacons in assemblies of women where no deacon was present. During the Middle Ages they lapsed altogether, and the desire of those women who wished to lead a consecrated life found fuller satisfaction in the religious communities. The great abbesses were certainly more important and influential persons than any deaconess had ever been.

The teaching of St Paul with regard to women has been and still is by many considered decisive as regards their ministry. But even St Paul's position is not so clear as is generally assumed; and, in what he writes about women, he seems sometimes to contradict himself. He says, 'Let the women keep silence in the churches'; but in the same Epistle he gives directions that the women who pray or prophesy should cover their heads, thus recognising the fact that they do pray and prophesy without condemning it. It is indeed difficult to see how, writing at that time and to people living under such social conditions as those of the Corinthian Christians, he could have advocated greater liberty than he did. It is clear from his greetings in his Epistles that he valued the work of those women who laboured much in the Lord'; it is clear too that he had at least some women

friends. Those who claim that we must be guided through all the ages by his teaching on such a subject as the ministry of women should consider how far it would lead them. As Bishop Gore once said, he who bade women pray with veiled heads would hardly have been satisfied with the little hats of modern women.

On the whole, it must be confessed that a careful study of the report of the Archbishop's Committee would seem to show us that we shall not get clear guidance, or indeed much guidance at all, from history in our perplexities about the functions of women in the Church of the present day. We have to face the fact that the whole position of women has been changed. How deep that change goes has not been recognised yet, either by the world or by the Church, or indeed by women themselves. With regard to their position in the Church, some would easily settle the matter by referring to tradition, to the universal custom of the Church from the beginning. Those who think to dismiss it in this way should realise how much they endanger, by such statements, the possibility of any value at all being attached to tradition by the younger generation on whom is laid the necessity of constructing a new world on the ruins of the old. For them at least tradition is a word of ill omen, and carries little weight. Some other word is needed to persuade them to attend with any patience to the lessons that the past has to teach, and to recognise the weight that should be attached to its authority. To the eager young mind that sees the vision of a new world in which every gift and capacity will be needed and should have free exercise, tradition seems like the dead hand of the past stretched out to crush their hopes and paralyse their activities.

In this distracted world religious teachers are repeating again and again that Christ alone can save society, and that every human relationship must be made conformable to His teaching. The ardent, thinking woman wishes to take her part in bringing this great truth home to the world. What is she allowed to do to help the Church at this crisis? She is told that she may become a deaconess, and she naturally asks what in that capacity she will be allowed to do? The Order of Deaconesses was revived by Bishop Tait on his own

authority in 1862. By slow degrees other Bishops followed his example, and in 1891 the Convocation of Canterbury made certain rules as to the position and admission of deaconesses, but the Anglican Church as functions. a whole has never defined their Their position, indeed the possibility of their existence in a diocese, depends upon the will of the individual Bishop. Where a Bishop will not ordain, there can be no deaconess. Neither in the words of the form of service by which they are set apart, nor in the kind of work that they are allowed to do, is there anything which differentiates deaconesses from other church-workers. They take no sort of vow; and the regulations of 1891 state that 'a Deaconess may be released from her obligations by the Bishop if he think fit, upon cause shown,' which shows that she is not regarded by ecclesiastical authorities as holding a permanent office in the Church. This state of things is profoundly unsatisfactory to the majority of modern deaconesses. They regard their vocation as lifelong, and they wish to have a regular position in the Church, with functions which they can execute by virtue of their office.

It is probable that the regulation which states that a deaconess may be released from her obligations by the Bishop was made to meet the case of those who might desire to marry. It is assumed that a deaconess cannot marry, though she takes no vow of celibacy. It is indeed, as things are at present, this fact alone that in the eyes of the world differentiates her from other trained and authorised church-workers. Opinions as to the possibility or advisability of having married deaconesses are much divided. Probably the great majority of deaconesses value the liberty which is gained, both in regard to their own personal outlook on life and in regard to their intercourse with others, by the fact that they have put away the possibility of marriage. But the idea that, should they marry, they would cease to be deaconesses seems to indicate that their office is a terminable one and not a dedication for life; and it is as a lifelong dedication that they regard it. It does not appear to be impossible in itself that a deaconess should be married. Marriage might involve some restriction of her activities, for a time at least, but,