deserted him and were reconciled to the Church but many of his more fanatical followers continued to agitate. He reopened his school in 1887 and claimed that only those who had remained loyal to him were or could be members of the true church. Since that time however this sect, for so we must call it, has never been of any importance, although it constantly tries to create trouble for both state and church. The most interesting thing in connection with all these fanatics is the way in which they oppose the state as well as the church. Of course it may be said that if the two were completely separate as here in America, this would not be the case; but this is hardly true. Even here we have had in recent years attempts to excuse anarchical teaching on the ground that the suppression of views and of acts which tend to subvert the government is a violation of that liberty of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. These "reformers " belong more truly to our class of political agitators than we perhaps imagine, because certain people always wish religion to mean political revolution.

In addition to this record of legislation and of religious quarrels, we may note some of the changes and ideals which are more intimately connected with religion. First, many of the monasteries have been closed. At the time of the Greek Revolution, there were in Greece 245 monasteries, many of which contained only one or two monks. By a law passed in 1833 all monasteries which had less than six monks were closed and the property of such monasteries was used for the foundation of schools for the education of the clergy. Later on part of the money thus acquired was used to pay the salaries of some of the bishops and other clergy. It seems that the government executed its task with a sense of its obligation, although in some cases the methods employed in disposing of the property displeased the more conservative classes of the population. The libraries of many of the monasteries which were left were removed to Athens, to the University where they could be better cared for than by their former owners. At the present time the remaining monasteries are required to pay a certain proportion of their income to the government to be used for the education of the clergy and for other religiou purposes.

It is recognized and stated openly by most of the leaders of the Greek Church that clerical education is one of the main problems which confronts them. The bishops and the higher clergy generally are now all well educated but it is much harder to care for the lower clergy. The Church is attempting to accomplish this and one sees in Athens many divinity students but even so the problem still is very difficult. It is aggravated by the fact that the Turkish occupation forced on the people an uneducated clergy and it is very hard to abolish a tradition of several centuries in a short time, even when a people is as fond of education as is the Greek people, for the conservative forces are always strong. One prominent theologian, Galanos, in a work entitled "The Errors of the Protestants " clearly states the need for more and better preaching than is customary at the present time and everywhere the need for education is clearly expressed. Yet sad to say, national pride often works to defeat these ends, as in the rioting indulged in a few years ago by the students in the University of Athens because the Synod prepared a version of the New Testament in modern Greek and so had insulted the Greek nation! It is however very likely that the Greek of to-day finds the New Testament less difficult than did the Greek of a century ago, because the general trend of the modern language is toward the removal of words and expressions which are foreign to the ancient forms of the language and a page of such writers as Prof. Kyriakos is very close in many respects to the Greek of the New Testament, although it cannot be said that this is as true of all writers, particularly the more popular ones. At the time of these riots the Archbishop of Athens resigned his post and was succeeded by Theokletos. He was a very capable man who led all movements for reform but during the political crisis in Greece he supported Constantine, and when that king was deposed he too resigned his office.

The Greek Church has been friendly with the Anglican Communion, although apparently its knowledge of the English Church is not so complete as might well be. Thus the best History of the Christian Church in modern Greek, which is by

Kyriakos (three volumes, published in 1898; and I say the best because it was recommended to me by the Archbishop of Athens himself in 1914), is sadly deficient in its account of the Anglican Church and at times almost grotesque in its account of the Catholic Revival of the nineteenth century. This is due to the fact that Kyriakos uses German Protestant authorities freely and consequently meets frequently the point of view of the more "liberal" parties in the Anglican Church. Later writers, such as Androutsos (The Validity of Anglican Orders, Constantinople, 1903), have a clearer idea of the Anglican situation but there is a real place for a good history of the Anglican Church written in Modern Greek to explain clearly the present situation, although we may hope that after the war English may be better known among Orthodox scholars than it has been in time past. Perhaps it may be said that such an attempt to explain the Anglican Church would be of great assistance to the Orthodox at this time when so many reforms and changes may be forced upon them. We have however good reason to hope that their knowledge of their past may help them to pass this critical time without being overwhelmed by the inrush of foreign thought and influence as was the case in the Anglican Communion in the sixteenth century.

It is hard to measure the spiritual growth and enlightenment of a nation and a Church which progresses by evolution and not, as so many people desire and believe necessary, by revolution. Suffice it to say that the Greek Church fully recognizes the tasks which confront it and we may well feel that it has done its best to solve its difficult problems. Its record may seem even more creditable than otherwise would be the case when we remember the darkness and the degradation spread by the Turkish domination and the short time during which large parts of Greece have been able to receive the benefits of a free and unoppressed development. If we consider the dark background of Balkan history and of political intrigue against which the life of Greece is mirrored, we may be well assured that if peace shall once again be restored to her, ere long the Greek Church will take her rightful place among the Churches of the world.

She has furnished many martyrs during the last centuries as also before the days of Constantine the Great, and it seems certain that, restored to freedom, her members will again reach the same high level as in the age when she was represented in the Councils of the Church by some of the most illustrious names in the whole history of Christianity.

Clarence Augustus Manning.

A

Territory and Jurisdiction

From the English Church Review

BOUT eighty years have now passed since the Church of England began to shake off the fetters of Protestantism and Erastianism in which she had been bound for three centuries. It is not surprising that during these years positions have been adopted by even the most respected of Catholic divines, which have later been seen to be anomalous. As the years pass on, however, and the Catholic religion makes vast strides within the Anglican Communion, these anomalies become fewer and fewer, and we hope that as English Catholicism becomes a more "established " and less "self-conscious " position, they may gradually disappear altogether. I intend in this paper to draw attention to one of these anomalies, and to endeavor to show that the view in question is untenable.

The theory to which I refer is held by numbers of Catholic priests in the Church of England: it may, for the sake of brevity, be called "The Territorial Theory of Jurisdiction." I will first sketch this theory, partly in the words of one of its supporters. It is based primarily on the idea that there can only be one Catholic Bishop in one place (the authority for this will be discussed later). "To each Bishop there has been allotted a defined sphere of jurisdiction, marked off by geographical boundaries. The Catholic Church has enacted that there shall not be two Bishops in one area. If there are, then

991

In

one is the lawful pastor, and the other an intruder. London there are two rival Bishops, the Bishop of London and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. Both of them cannot be the lawful pastor. On these lines, it is argued that the Church of England, in virtue of its direct succession of Archbishops and Bishops since St. Augustine, is the only true part or branch of the Catholic Church in these islands. The Church of England is simply certain dioceses of the Church, which unhappily are temporarily out of Communion with the Holy See. Hence the Roman hierarchy in England is schismatic: its establishment was the deliberate setting up of hierarchy against hierarchy. To attend a service at a Roman Catholic Church in England is, therefore, a mortal sin, in that it is an act of open defiance to the Bride of Christ. "In the morning you are present at a parish church where the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London is recognized, and thus you publicly proclaim your Communion with the Bishop of London. In the evening you are present at Brompton Oratory, where the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Westminister is recognized, and thus you publicly proclaim your Communion with the Archbishop of Westminster. It is idle to put in the plea that you had no such intention. You cannot take part in public worship without recognizing the authority of the minister, and of him who gave it to the minister. If you merely went in order to gratify your curiosity, then you insulted Almighty God. Putting aside the latter alternative, it is quite clear that on one of these two occasions you committed an act of schism. If the Bishop of London is the lawful pastor, you were a schismatic in the evening: if the Archbishop of Westminster is the lawful pastor, you were a schismatic in the morning.' The more extreme (and more consistent) of the "Territorialists" maintain that even to enter a Roman Catholic Church in England puts one in danger of eternal punishment, since to genuflect to the Holy Sacrament reserved therein would be an act of schism, while to ignore it would be sacrilege.

992

1 The Rev. G. Bayfield Roberts, "The Roman Question" (C.L.A.). Of course, I do not attribute any views to Mr. Bayfield Roberts personally, except those which are directly quoted.

2 The Rev. Bayfield Roberts (vide supra).