Even the most casual reader may say at this point, "But if, as you say, Roman Catholicism has no right to exist in England, how is the existence of Anglicanism on the Continent to be defended? What right had the Church of England to set up a Bishop in Northern and Central Europe? Surely, on your principles, to attend an Anglican service in France would be a mortal sin."

There is an uncharitable rumour that a certain eminent clergyman in England feels this difficulty so strongly, that he refuses to visit the Continent at all! However, all "Territorialists" are fortunately not driven by their tenets to this extreme. They reply, They reply," The cases are not the same. We are perfectly willing to welcome Roman Catholic visitors at our altars: consequently there is no need for Roman Churches here. Moreover, if they existed merely to minister to the needs of visitors who belong to the Roman Communion, it would be less objectionable. But what we do most strongly oppose is the setting up of hierarchy against hierarchy, and the attempt to proselytize. If the Roman Catholics would administer the sacraments to Anglicans there would be no need for a Bishop in Northern and Central Europe. As it is, Anglican Churches exist abroad simply in order to prevent the spiritual starvation of Anglican visitors, and any attempt to make converts is highly to be deprecated." The critics might reply, "That sounds plausible enough. But how does the theory apply to the mission field?" The "Territorialist" has a ready retort: "The mission field," he says, 66 presents no difficulties. Just as Anglicanism represents true Catholicism in England, because of its priority, so whichever part of the Church arrived first in any missionary district represents the true Church in that place. The scope for evangelization is still so vast that there is no need for overlapping among Catholics, though this has unhappily sometimes occurred. Let us hope that in the remote future, when overlapping would naturally present a difficulty, the Church may be reunited."

I hope that I have now given a fair impression of the theory of jurisdiction held by a considerable number of Anglo-Catho

lics. I propose in the remainder of this paper to state certain objections to it, and to offer an alternative theory for my readers' consideration.

Let us consider carefully first of all the foundation-stone of the whole "territorial " system: the belief that there can only be one Catholic Bishop in one place. Now, it is perfectly true that in the undivided Church (prior to 1054) it was assumed that there would only be one Bishop in each city: the problem as to whether a plurality of orthodox Bishops, recognized as such, living in the same place, but exercising jurisdiction over different sets of people, was a possibility, simply did not arise. The reason for this is obvious, viz. the fact that there was only one visible Church and one Empire. Church and Empire were practically coterminous: nearly all Catholics were Roman citizens and vice versa. Christendom was doctrinally, ecclesiastically and politically one. Consequently, territorial monepiscopacy is taken for granted rather than definitely enacted in the Canons of the Councils of Nicæa I. and Constantinople I. However, this state of affairs has long since disappeared. With the fall of the Roman Empire the principle of nationality reappeared, and numberless nations and races now exist which often overlap territorially, as e. g. in the Balkan States and the U. S. A. Similarly, the one world-Church has been sadly broken up, so far as external unity is concerned, by doctrinal dissensions with respect to the "Filioque " and the Papal claims. I submit, therefore, that it is useless to attempt to apply the rule of territorialism, which was merely one of practical expediency, eight hundred and fifty years after the conditions which it presupposes have passed away. Territorialism has, in fact, been repealed by the very same authority which laid it down, viz. the tacit consent of the whole Church. The Pope recognizes uniate Churches, with their separate rites, their married priesthood, and Communion in both kinds, all over the East. The Eastern Church recognizes the Raskol in Russia (the reunited remnant of the " Old Believers," who still retain their separate organization). So much, then, for the foundation stone. This has been shown to be so insecure that it is

not surprising to find that the whole edifice is in a highly precarious condition.

My next point is this: Territorialism leaves no room for being an Anglican by conviction. One is an Anglican simply because one happens to have been born in England, or in some part of the world where Anglicanism was introduced before any other form of Catholicism. Hence, if my business caused me to reside in Paris for the remainder of my life, I should, presumably become a Roman Catholic. Territorialists might deny this corollary; but it is nevertheless the logical outcome of their system. Now, this in itself is an immensely important point. I am an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic through no accident of birth, but because I do not accept the Papal claims; permanent residence in France or Italy would not affect my convictions on this subject in any way. If I became a Roman Catholic, it would be because my beliefs were definitely different from those which I hold at present. So long as I believe what I do, I shall remain an Anglican, even though Providence decrees that I am to spend the rest of my days one hundred miles from the nearest English church. I read a pamphlet on the Roman question some time ago, the writer of which held the territorial theory. He maintained, of course, that he was an Anglican because he was an Englishman, etc. I remember remarking at the time that, if I had no stronger grounds for remaining in the Church of England than those propounded in that pamphlet, I should not hesitate to submit to the Pope at once. I was not at all surprised to hear very shortly afterwards that the author had taken that step. Those who refuse to support the outcry against the setting up of a “rival hierarchy are sometimes accused of Romanizing. I submit that the converse is nearer the truth. My second point, then, may be summed up as follows: The territorial system leaves no room for those who are Anglicans by conviction. More will be said of this later on. Let us now pass on to the third point.

Territorialism may be refuted by the form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum. Let us consider the question of the mission field. We have seen that the territorial theory on

this subject is briefly this: Whichever part of the Church is the first to arrive in any district represents the true part or branch of the Catholic Church in that place. Now, this is a remarkable position for loyal Anglicans to assume, since the English Church has herself set up a "rival hierarchy " in Eastern Canada and South America, and many other parts of the world where a Latin hierarchy had been in existence for centuries. On logical territorial principles, perhaps, Anglican chaplaincies might temporarily be tolerated in Quebec and a few other centres, so that visitors might have an opportunity of receiving the Sacraments; but the establishment of an organized hierarchy must inevitably be regarded as strictly parallel to the action of the Roman Catholic Church, which territorialists so sternly repudiate.

Moreover, when the territorial theory is pressed further still, it fails altogether. Imagine two priests, one Anglican, the other Roman or Orthodox, in some remote district whither Christianity has never penetrated. Imagine them racing each other on horseback to their destination. The Anglican has the swifter mount, and on arrival, he hurriedly celebrates Holy Communion. When the other priest in breathless haste arrives, the Anglican turns to him and says, "Too late, too late! you are a schismatic." This idea has only to be stated for every one to see that it is preposterous. Yet it is difficult to deny that, since priority is said to be the test of Catholicism, it is the logical outcome of territorialism.

It remains very briefly to state the alternative position. Now it is perfectly obvious that every Anglican must hold a "branch theory" of some kind: the Church of England must be either a branch of the Catholic Church or else it must be the whole of it. I suppose no one would seriously maintain the truth of the latter alternative. If the former is accepted, we are committed to some kind of a “branch theory.'

The Catholic Church, then, consists, broadly speaking, of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Eastern Churches, and the Anglican Church. All these parts of the Church hold the same Holy Catholic Faith: the Easterns hold it pure and

simple; the Anglicans hold it together with the " Filioque;' the Romans hold it together with the " Filioque" and the Papal claims. This very roughly describes the position. Consequently, as I have said above, I am an Anglican because I accept the "Filioque" and reject the Papal claims, not because I happen to have been born in England. It follows that, since each of the three principal parts of the Church presents a point of view distinct from that presented by the other parts, any one of them has a right to exist and to endeavour to make converts in any part of the world.

Consequently, I submit that jurisdiction is no longer over territory, but over souls. The Archbishop of Westminster has jurisdiction over the Roman Catholics in the diocese of Westminster. The Bishop of London has jurisdiction over the Anglicans in the diocese of London. Both have a right to exist, and neither is schismatic.

The wide acceptance of the view which I have proposed is of enormous importance in the cause of Christian charity, which is the fundamental necessity in any thought of Reunion. The following incident will illustrate what I mean.

I casually remarked to a priest on whom I was calling a short time ago that I was on my way to look at the Roman Catholic cathedral in the town where I was staying. My host was a thorough Catholic, yet he was absolutely scandalized at my intention, and spoke at considerable length about the horrors of schism in the parish. I hold very strongly that feelings such as these among Catholics are highly to be deprecated. A logical consequence of the view which I am defending is that, since there is no question of schism, no sin is committed by joining in worship with our fellow-Catholics, whether Latin or Eastern and whether in England or in any other part of the world whatsoever. This consequence is most important and valuable. I am convinced that this freedom leads to far fewer secessions than any view which compels one to regard Roman Catholic services in the light of" forbidden fruit." All loyal Anglicans will naturally and inevitably regard their own church as their spiritual home. A Roman church would never usurp this place, since it