"In the Communion of the Church of England in A.D. 1715 "Number of Souls out of the whole Population of 120,000, 120,000 50,000 70,000 0 360,000 360,000 "I have given the proportions, &c. in round numbers, and in every instance adopted the statistics most in favour of the Church. "Here then is the result of one hundred and forty years' experiment of a Pseudo-Episcopate! Where shall we turn or where look for a fall so shameful, a collapse so utter, a prostration so ruinous, a verdict of damnation pronounced by a whole Christian People so absolute and unqualified? Such are the effects standing out in mid-day relief against the skies of the Principality, of the imposition on its Inhabitants of a Papal Corruption for a Reformation Principle, of a Political Imposture for a Gospel Institution."-Pp. 44-48. Upon a comparison of the state of the Welsh Church about the period of the Revolution in 1688, when it ceased to have Welshmen for its chief governors, with its condition at the present time when it has been governed by a succession of English Prelates, no one, we think, can hesitate to ascribe much if not all of its present deplorable weakness to that system of misrule which lavished the highest preferments upon men who were utter strangers to the sympathies and the language of the nation. This vicious system was not confined to the episcopate; English Priests also, friends and relations of our Anglo-Welsh Bishops, were forced upon reluctant parishes. As an instance of this, we will mention one well-known case which occurred in the Diocese of Bangor, and of which, we have been informed, a record has been preserved in the Parish Registry. "In the year 1766, Dr. Bowles, an Englishman, unacquainted with Welsh, was presented, by the Bishop of Bangor, to the Living of Trevdraeth, in Anglesey. In 1773, the churchwardens, aided by the Cymmrodorion Society, brought an action in the Court of Arches, to deprive him of it, on the ground of his incapacity to do the duty in Welsh. In the arguments in this cause, after the advocates of the churchwardens had proved that by the Canon, the statute law, &c., he ought to be deprived, the advocates of the defendant, Dr. Bowles, expressed themselves thus:-Though the Doctor does not understand the language, he is in possession and cannot be turned out. Wales is a conquered country; it is proper to introduce the English language, and it is the duty of the Bishops to endeavour to promote Englishmen, in order to introduce the language. It has always been the policy of the legislature to introduce the English language into Wales.' The Judge of the Court, however, did not agree with the view taken of the matter by this politic and ingenious advocate, but decided that, 'It is proper that the Bishops in Wales should take such order for the cure of souls as to appoint pastors that are acquainted with the language of the country. It is the primitive law of the Church, and is the law at this time. I am of opinion that a want of knowledge of the Welsh language is a good cause of refusal in the Bishop, and that he ought to refuse him if he be incompetent. The inhabitants of Wales have great reason to complain of such presentations.'"1 This case has obtained greater prominence on account of the suit in the Court of Arches-but this suit was not commenced until the English intruder had been in possession of the parish for about seven years, and probably would not have been ventured upon at all, had it not been for the patriotic spirit of the Cymmrodorion society. All honour to that society for their noble conduct! Although the case may be better known, it is only a specimen of scores of others scattered all over the country, which churchwardens had not either the means or the public spirit to bring into a Court of Law. This evil has come down even to our own day. It does not require a man to be very old to remember the miserable attempts of English possessors of Welsh Livings to mutter the services of the Sanctuary in the Welsh language. It is always painful to witness such exhibitions, but we may say that almost the majority of Welsh parishes have had to endure them at one time or another; and the effect is most deplorable. The great body of the people have entirely left the Church. argue if There are some men who would almost that few, any, Welshmen are fit to be elevated to the Episcopal Bench. We have always regarded such an assertion as a National insult and utterly unworthy of being treated with attention or respect. Even were we to concede the general inferiority of Welshmen when compared with their English brethren, those who take an opposite view from ours on this subject would not be one whit the nearer to the proof of their position-there would still remain this obvious consideration, that it is better to have for a Bishop an inferior man who certainly can discharge his duties than a superior man who is confessedly and notoriously incapable of performing one single act of duty in the language of the people. The assumed unfitness of the Welshman who certainly does know his own language affects the English aspirant only negatively. It clears the ground until a more fit person can be discovered-but it in no way helps to prove that the Englishman, who cannot even repeat the Welsh alphabet, is that fitter person. But we deny altogether the truth of the allegation that there are among the Welsh clergy of the present day none who could properly be elevated to the highest office in the See "Considerations on the illegality of preferring to Welsh Benefices, clergymen ignorant of Welsh." By W. B. Jones, A.M., Fellow of Queen's College, Oxon. Church. We believe there are many who would add lustre to any office or station, in any country, in which Providence might think fit to place them; and as regards their fitness for the episcopal office in their own country, it were only folly to deny it. If Welshmen are unfit, most certainly Englishmen are still more unfit, and therefore the argument, if it be worth anything, goes to prove, that if we are to have the best men, either we must have the Welshman who is the least incompetent, or annihilate the office altogether. But Welshmen have been tried, and history gives us the result. We appeal triumphantly to the fact, that at the termination of the period during which the Welsh Church was governed by a native episcopate, after a probation of one hundred and fifty years, we find that Church, embracing within its sacred fold, and absorbing the entire sympathy of, the whole nation. In the year 1715, when the Welsh Sees, ever since the Reformation, had been filled almost exclusively by Welshmen, "Bishops," according to Browne Willis, "most excellent-of great learninggreat benefactors-Bishops in all respects disposed to promote the good of the Church-Bishops whose deaths were an unspeakable loss to the Diocese-Bishops of remarkable attainments," there is not to be found one single dissenting conventicle in the whole of North Wales, and the entire nation is united in the bosom of the Church. From 1715 to the present time, a different system has been pursued, and the government of the Welsh Church has been in the hands of Englishmen. And what has been the result? In 1715 we look in vain for conventicles. In 1855 we find 1256 places of worship set up in opposition to the Church in North Wales alone, and five-sixths of the population separated from its communion. Can there be a doubt any longer with respect to the comparative merits of the two systems? If we would be guided by the result of long experience we must not rest until we procure the restoration to the Welsh Church of her own native episcopate. Under its rule it has greatly prospered once; why should it not, under God's blessing, prosper again? As a church, we are by this time heartily tired of a system which has brought us to the verge of destruction; and we pray GoD that He may guide our rulers and lead them to see the gross injustice which has been so long practised upon the Welsh branch of the Anglo-Catholic Church. In conclusion; we must express a hope that our present AngloWelsh Bishops will forgive anything they may consider as offensive to them in this article. We have treated this, not as a personal matter, but as a principle deeply affecting the welfare of the Church. Violent language or the introduction of acrimony, into the discussion of a serious subject, can only serve to injure the cause of him who uses such weapons. And in this particular we consider that the author of "Episcopal Corruptions" is very seriously at fault. 14 THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. IN our former article we ventured to offer a few reasons for thinking that the prevalent tone of modern teaching on this subject is out of harmony with that of the Prayer Book, and founded on a wrong understanding of Holy Scripture. We endeavoured to illustrate our position by taking out from the Book of Common Prayer such expressions as relate to the work of GOD the HOLY GHOST; and from the New Testament all allusions to the indwelling in individuals, and in the Church at large, of each Person of the most holy TRINITY. The conclusion seemed to be forced upon us, that the formularies of the Church contain no certain reference to any other intercourse between the HOLY GHOST and men than that which originates in the Sacraments; and that wherever any indwelling of God in individuals is spoken of in Holy Scripture, the Person of the Godhead referred to is that Person Who took our manhood upon Him, and established in His Mediation a chain of union between divine and human nature. The English Church has been charged with a kind of idolatry of CHRIST. It is a charge which English churchmen can well afford to admit, and glory in; for this one truth pervades all her offices, that every act of worship on our part, and every gift of grace on the part of GOD, must, to be acceptable to Him and serviceable to us, centre in the humanity of our LORD JESUS. Believing in, and teaching on every opportunity the inseparable unity of the Trine Godhead as our object of faith; she also confesses that the whole Three Persons must necessarily co-operate in all works of grace: but yet she learns from the teaching of the WORD Himself, and from the revelation of the HOLY GHOST by the Apostles and Doctors of His Church, to set this one truth ever before her children, that the practical discipline of our spiritual life is a work carried on in and through our individual union with CHRIST. This is witnessed hardly less in the order of the seasons than in the formal statements of Creed and Sacramental Office. In the four weeks of Advent we have set before us the majesty of that Man's nature which is to be unveiled to the eye of Jew and Gentile at the season of Christmas in the form of a little child. Lest we should think too lightly of so humble a Manhood, the royalty of its dignity and power is declared beforehand, so that, even in their thoughts and contemplations Christians are to "make straight the way of the LORD;" preparing themselves to contemplate Him, not as an historical character only, but as the "Prince of Life." Then in Epiphany He is again manifested in the Church's ministration as at first in bodily reality, under those various phases of His relation to us which are all contained in His human nature. One octave declares the universality of His sovereignty as symbolized in the worship of Jewish shepherds and Gentile magi; another sets forth His power over all; a third His sympathy for all; a fourth that He is a SAVIOUR to those who are not of the seed of Abraham, as well as to those who are; a fifth that He exercises special providence over the Church; and a sixth that He will be the Judge of all mankind. Lent mingles its teaching of the Cross in CHRIST's whole Manhood with its injunctions of selfdenial to His members. Holy Week and Easter have their selfevident lessons; and onwards to the time of the Ascension is occupied with the contemplation of those things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD, in which CHRIST's humanity is the living agent, presence, and power. Then the chronological Creed, if one may be allowed to call it so, is completed by one single week in commemoration of the Pentecostal Advent of GOD the HOLY GHOST; and by a Sunday dedicated to the Three in One. Thus the cycle of festivals by means of which the Church's faith is so strongly illustrated, suggests the same fulness of teaching in respect to our LORD, and the same reserve as regards GOD the HOLY GHOST, which we showed before to be so conspicuous in the wording of her offices. Day by day, week after week, the human nature of our LORD is set forth in all its phases of relation to us; but in one week only are we directed to the special contemplation of the HOLY SPIRIT, and even then there is nothing to indicate an intention of stating individual relativeness between ourselves and the object of faith. Indeed, at Whitsuntide, as at other seasons, this idea of individual relation rests on the Person of our LORD, and the only relation exhibited between the HOLY GHOST and ordinary Christians, is that He is ministering to us the human nature of CHRIST in that Mystical Presence by which He becomes the Life and Light of all that are His for ever. Nor is a system of teaching which gives striking prominence to the ordinary operation of the HOLY GHOST, merely at variance with the general os of the Church. Such teaching, as we have already implied, is founded on a notion that God the Spirit not only dwells in the Mystical Body of CHRIST, but also independently in the individual souls and bodies of CHRIST's individual members. How far this notion is directly borne out by Holy Scripture may be seen from the quotations given in our former Article; but as each reader takes his own view of such quotations, and some will differ from ours, we must argue the question on other grounds also. It must be admitted, then, that in a certain sense—perhaps we had better say in an indefinite sense-that which dwells in the whole of any thing must dwell also in every part. But if we come to apply such an axiom as this to that of which we know so little as indivisible spirit, we shall soon find ourselves obliged to give |