{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39283/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39283","id":"gutenberg_39283","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39283","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Clergy","Lord's prayer","Ruskin, John, 1819-1900 -- Correspondence"],"text":"Produced by Paul Murray, Elizaveta Shevyakhova and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTERS\n                            TO THE CLERGY\n\n                                  ON\n\n                  _The Lord's Prayer and the Church_\n\n                    BY JOHN RUSKIN, LL.D., D.C.L.\n\n\n               WITH REPLIES FROM CLERGY AND LAITY, AND\n                      AN EPILOGUE BY MR. RUSKIN\n\n\n               EDITED, WITH ESSAYS AND COMMENTS, BY THE\n                      REV. F. A. MALLESON, M.A.\n                    VICAR OF BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS\n\n\n                            THIRD EDITION\n\n\n               _WITH ADDITIONAL LETTERS BY MR. RUSKIN_\n\n\n                                LONDON\n\n                GEORGE ALLEN, 156, CHARING CROSS ROAD\n\n                                 1896\n\n                       [_All rights reserved_]\n\n\n\n\n                 _Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO\n\n                      _At the Ballantyne Press_\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe first reading of the Letters to the Clerical Society to which they\nwere first addressed in September 1879, twenty-three clergy being\npresent, was prefaced with the following remarks:--\n\n     A few words by way of introduction will be absolutely necessary\n     before I proceed to read Mr. Ruskin's letters. They originated\n     simply in a proposal of mine, which met with so ready and willing a\n     response, that it almost seemed like a simultaneous thought. They\n     are addressed nominally to myself, as representing the body of\n     clergy whose secretary I have the honour to be; they are, in fact,\n     therefore addressed to this Society primarily. But in the course of\n     the next month or two they will also be read to two other Clerical\n     Societies,--the Ormskirk and the Brighton (junior),--who have\n     acceded to my proposals with much kindness, and in the first case\n     have invited me of their own accord. I have undertaken, to the best\n     of my ability, to arrange and set down the various expressions of\n     opinion, which will be freely uttered. In so limited a time, many\n     who may have much to say that would be really valuable will find no\n     time to-day to deliver it. Of these brethren, I beg that they will\n     do me the favour to express their views at their leisure, in\n     writing. The original letters, the discussions, the letters which\n     may be suggested, and a few comments of the Editor's, will be\n     published in a volume which will appear, I trust, in the beginning\n     of the next year.\n\n     I will now, if you please, undertake the somewhat dangerous\n     responsibility of avowing my own impressions of the letters I am\n     about to read to you. I own that I believe I see in these papers\n     the development of a principle of the deepest interest and\n     importance,--namely, the application of the highest standard in the\n     interpretation of the Gospel message _to_ ourselves as clergymen,\n     and _from_ ourselves to our congregations. We have plenty elsewhere\n     of doctrine and dogma, and undefinable shades of theological\n     opinion. Let us turn at last to practical questions presented for\n     our consideration by an eminent layman whose field of work lies\n     quite as much in religion and ethics, as it does, reaching to so\n     splendid an eminence, in Art. A man is wanted to show to both\n     clergy and laity something of the full force and meaning of Gospel\n     teaching. Many there are, and I am of this number, whose cry is\n     \"_Exoriare aliquis_.\"\n\n     I ask you, if possible, to do in an hour what I have been for the\n     last two months trying to do, to divest myself of old forms of\n     thought, to cast off self-indulgent views of our duty as ministers\n     of religion, to lift ourselves out of those grooves in which we are\n     apt to run so smoothly and so complacently, persuading ourselves\n     that all is well just as it is, and to endeavour to strike into a\n     sterner, harder path, beset with difficulties, but still the path\n     of duty. These papers will demand a close, a patient, and in some\n     places, a few will think, an indulgent consideration; but as a\n     whole, the standard taken is, as I firmly believe, speaking only\n     for myself, lofty and Christian to the extent of an almost ideal\n     perfection. If we do go forward straight in the direction which Mr.\n     Ruskin points out, I know we shall come, sooner or later, to a\n     chasm right across our path. Some of us, I hope, will undauntedly\n     cross it. Let each judge for himself, [Greek: to telei pistin\n     pheron].\n\n\n\n\n                               PREFACE\n\n                         TO THE THIRD EDITION\n\n\nHaving been urged to bring out a new edition of the volume first edited\nby me in 1880, and having willingly accepted the invitation to do so, it\nwill naturally be expected that I should give some account of the\ncircumstances which have led me to take the somewhat unusual step of\nreviving a book which has for twelve years been lying in a state of\nsuspended animation.\n\nOn the first conception of this volume I applied to Messrs. Strahan, to\nproduce it before the reading and thinking world. I should have done\nmore wisely, no doubt, had I offered the publication to Mr. George\nAllen, Mr. Ruskin's well-known publisher. It avails not to explain why I\nchose a different course, of which subsequent events only too soon\nshowed me the error; for after the first edition had been sold off in a\nweek, and while the second was partly sold and partly in preparation,\nMessrs. Strahan's failure was announced, greatly to my surprise; my\nsomewhat isolated position in the north country so far from London\nkeeping me very imperfectly informed as to what was passing in the\nliterary world.\n\nReasonable, business-like people would ask, why did I not make an effort\nto rescue my little barque out of the general wreckage, and why did I\nnot, remembering that Mr. Ruskin had with much kindness freely bestowed\nthe copyright on me, save the second edition and arrange with another\npublisher to carry the work on? But I was failing at the time with the\nillness which was effectually cured only by a long sojourn amidst or\nvery near to the ice and snow of the Alps. I was incapable of much\nexertion, and, in fact, did not much care. Besides which I am not a\nprofessed literary man, being chiefly interested in the work of my rural\nparish on the borders of the Lake District, and should not think it\nfair, or even possible, if I may use an equestrian metaphor, to attempt\nto ride two horses at once.\n\nSo Mr. Ruskin's letters, etc., as edited by the present writer, came to\nbe entirely laid by, though not forgotten by the hosts of Mr. Ruskin's\nfriends, followers, and admirers, who regretted the suspension of so\nvaluable a work and so rich in great thoughts, teachings, and\nsuggestions.\n\nSo things remained until August 1895, when a new friend, Mr. Smart, gave\nme the pleasure of a visit, and we talked over the circumstances just\nnarrated. Passing over several very pleasant meetings in London, let it\nbe sufficient to mention that under the impulse of Mr. George Allen's\nencouragement, and cheered by the valuable assistance and co-operation\nof another friend, Mr. T. J. Wise, I agreed to carry forward this Third\nEdition with the full approbation and consent of Mr. Ruskin himself,\nthough it should be said that on account of the state of his health, I\nhave been unable to consult him on any of the details of the\npublication.\n\nBut it will not be exactly the same volume. Mr. Allen and Mr. Wise,\nhaving gone over much of my correspondence with Mr. Ruskin, were good\nenough to express a desire that some of those letters addressed to\nmyself as a friend should be embodied in the present volume, as being\nstrongly illustrative of his views on the subjects dealt with in his\nmore formal Letters to the Clergy. I may claim pardon for a feeling of\ngreat satisfaction with the circumstance that in the course of so long\nand so delicate a correspondence as is contained in this volume, never\nhas a cloud overshadowed our paths in this matter, never has a cold\nblast from the east sent a shiver through my system, nor, I presume,\nhis. For had Mr. Ruskin felt any resentment at anything I wrote, with\nhis usual downright frankness he would not have been backward for an\nhour in expressing in vehement language what he felt. But from first to\nlast my intercourse with that kind and eminently distinguished friend\nhas been kept bright and happy by his unvarying serenity.\n\nThe Letters from Clergy and Laity in this Third Edition occupy much less\nspace than in the original one. It was Mr. Ruskin's wish that they\nshould be subjected to some process of abridgment; besides which the\nallowing of space for the new feature of additional Ruskin Letters made\na curtailment in another direction necessary. The plan which seemed to\nme the least discourteous to my numerous correspondents of that time has\nbeen to make a selection of passages from a certain number of the\nLetters.\n\n                                                    F. A. MALLESON.\n\n      THE VICARAGE,\n\n  BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS,\n\n     _January 1896._\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                             PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                                  v\n\n  PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION                                 xi\n\n  MR. RUSKIN'S LETTERS--\n\n          LETTER    I.                                          3\n\n            \"      II.                                          5\n\n            \"     III.                                          8\n\n            \"      IV.                                          9\n\n            \"       V.                                         12\n\n            \"      VI.                                         15\n\n            \"     VII.                                         19\n\n            \"    VIII.                                         25\n\n            \"      IX.                                         32\n\n            \"       X.                                         36\n\n            \"      XI.                                         42\n\n  ESSAYS AND COMMENTS. BY THE EDITOR                           49\n\n  EXTRACTS OF LETTERS FROM CLERGY AND LAITY                   131\n\n  LETTERS FROM BRANTWOOD-ON-THE-LAKE TO THE\n  VICARAGE OF BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS                            219\n\n  EPILOGUE BY MR. RUSKIN                                      287\n\n  APPENDIX                                                    323\n\n\n\n\n                         MR. RUSKIN'S LETTERS\n\n\n\n\n                                   I\n\n\n                                      BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, LANCASHIRE,\n                                            _20th June, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I could not at once answer your important letter:\nfor, though I felt at once the impossibility of my venturing to address\nsuch an audience as you proposed, I am unwilling to fail in answering to\nany call relating to matters respecting which my feelings have been long\nin earnest, if in any wise it may be possible for me to be of service\ntherein. My health--or want of it--now utterly forbids my engagement in\nany duty involving excitement or acute intellectual effort; but I\nthink, before the first Tuesday in August, I might be able to write one\nor two letters to yourself, referring to, and more or less completing,\nsome passages already printed in Fors and elsewhere, which might, on\nyour reading any portions you thought available, become matter of\ndiscussion during the meeting at some leisure time, after its own main\npurposes had been answered.\n\nAt all events, I will think over what I should like, and be able, to\nrepresent to such a meeting, and only beg you not to think me insensible\nof the honour done me by your wish, and of the gravity of the trust\nreposed in me.\n\n                                    Ever most faithfully yours,\n                                                          J. RUSKIN.\n\n    THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\n\n\n                                  II\n\n\n                                                  BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,\n                                                   _23rd June, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--Walking, and talking, are now alike impossible to\nme;[1] my strength is gone for both; nor do I believe talking on such\nmatters to be of the least use except to promote, between sensible\npeople, kindly feeling and knowledge of each other's personal\ncharacters. I have every trust in _your_ kindness and truth; nor do I\nfear being myself misunderstood by you; what I may be able to put into\nwritten form, so as to admit of being laid before your friends in\ncouncil, must be set down without any question of personal feeling--as\nsimply as a mathematical question or demonstration.\n\n     [1] In answer to the proposal of discussing the subject during a\n     mountain walk.\n\nThe first exact question which it seems to me such an assembly may be\nearnestly called upon by laymen to solve, is surely axiomatic: the\ndefinition of themselves as a body, and of their business as such.\n\nNamely: as clergymen of the Church of England, do they consider\nthemselves to be so called merely as the attached servants of a\nparticular state? Do they, in their quality of guides, hold a position\nsimilar to that of the guides of Chamouni or Grindelwald, who being a\nnumbered body of examined and trustworthy persons belonging to those\nseveral villages, have nevertheless no Chamounist or Grindelwaldist\nopinions on the subject of Alpine geography or glacier walking: but are\nprepared to put into practice a common and universal science of Locality\nand Athletics, founded on sure survey and successful practice? Are the\nclergymen of the Ecclesia of England thus simply the attached and\nsalaried guides of England and the English, in the way, known of all\ngood men, that leadeth unto life?--or are they, on the contrary, a body\nof men holding, or in any legal manner required, or compelled to hold,\nopinions on the subject--say, of the height of the Celestial Mountains,\nthe crevasses which go down quickest to the pit, and other cognate\npoints of science,--differing from, or even contrary to, the tenets of\nthe guides of the Church of France, the Church of Italy, and other\nChristian countries?\n\nIs not this the first of all questions which a Clerical Council has to\nanswer in open terms?\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                 III\n\n\n                                          BRANTWOOD, _6th July, 1879_.\n\nMy first letter contained a Layman's plea for a clear answer to the\nquestion, \"What is a clergyman of the Church of England?\" Supposing the\nanswer to this first to be, that the clergy of the Church of England are\nteachers, not of the Gospel to England, but of the Gospel to all\nnations; and not of the Gospel of Luther, nor of the Gospel of\nAugustine, but of the Gospel of Christ,--then the Layman's second\nquestion would be:\n\nCan this Gospel of Christ be put into such plain words and short terms\nas that a plain man may understand it?--and, if so, would it not be, in\na quite primal sense, desirable that it should be so, rather than left\nto be gathered out of Thirty-nine Articles, written by no means in\nclear English, and referring, for further explanation of exactly the\nmost important point in the whole tenor of their teaching,[2] to a\n\"Homily of Justification,\"[3] which is not generally in the possession,\nor even probably within the comprehension, of simple persons?\n\n                                    Ever faithfully yours,\n                                                     J. RUSKIN.\n\n     [2] Art. xi.\n\n     [3] Homily xi. of the Second Table.\n\n\n\n\n                                  IV\n\n\n                                          BRANTWOOD, _8th July, 1879_.\n\nI am so very glad that you approve of the letter plan, as it enables me\nto build up what I would fain try to say, of little stones, without\nlifting too much for my strength at once; and the sense of addressing a\nfriend who understands me and sympathizes with me prevents my being\nbrought to a stand by continual need for apology, or fear of giving\noffence.\n\nBut yet I do not quite see why you should feel my asking for a simple\nand comprehensible statement of the Christian Gospel as startling. Are\nyou not bid to go into _all_ the world and preach it to every creature?\n(I should myself think the clergyman most likely to do good who accepted\nthe [Greek: pase te ktisei] so literally as at least to sympathize with\nSt. Francis' sermon to the birds, and to feel that feeding either sheep\nor fowls, or unmuzzling the ox, or keeping the wrens alive in the snow,\nwould be received by their Heavenly Feeder as the _perfect_ fulfilment\nof His \"Feed My sheep\" in the higher sense.)\n\nThat's all a parenthesis; for although I should think that your good\ncompany would all agree that kindness to animals was a kind of preaching\nto them, and that hunting and vivisection were a kind of blasphemy to\nthem, I want only to put the sterner question before your council, _how_\nthis Gospel is to be preached either \"[Greek: pantachou]\" or to \"[Greek:\npanta ta ethne],\" if first its preachers have not determined quite\nclearly what it _is_? And might not such definition, acceptable to the\nentire body of the Church of Christ, be arrived at by merely explaining,\nin their completeness and life, the terms of the Lord's Prayer--the\nfirst words taught to children all over the Christian world?\n\nI will try to explain what I mean of its several articles, in following\nletters; and in answer to the question with which you close your last, I\ncan only say that you are at perfect liberty to use any, or all, or any\nparts of them, as you think good. Usually, when I am asked if letters of\nmine may be printed, I say: \"Assuredly, provided only that you print\nthem entire.\" But in your hands, I withdraw even this condition, and\ntrust gladly to your judgment, remaining always\n\n                            Faithfully and affectionately yours,\n                                                           J. RUSKIN.\n\n    THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\n\n\n                                  V\n\n               [Greek: pater hemon ho en tois ouranois.]\n\n                   _Pater noster qui es in caelis._\n\n\n                                         BRANTWOOD, _10th July, 1879_.\n\nMy meaning, in saying that the Lord's Prayer might be made a foundation\nof Gospel-teaching, was not that it contained all that Christian\nministers have to teach; but that it contains what all Christians are\nagreed upon as first to be taught; and that no good parish-working\npastor in any district of the world but would be glad to take his part\nin making it clear and living to his congregation.\n\nAnd the first clause of it, of course rightly explained, gives us the\nground of what is surely a mighty part of the Gospel--its \"first and\ngreat commandment,\" namely, that we have a Father whom we _can_ love,\nand are required to love, and to desire to be with Him in Heaven,\nwherever that may be.\n\nAnd to declare that we have such a loving Father, whose mercy is over\n_all_ His works, and whose will and law is so lovely and lovable that it\nis sweeter than honey, and more precious than gold, to those who can\n\"taste\" and \"see\" that the Lord is Good--this, surely, is a most\npleasant and glorious good message and _spell_ to bring to men--as\ndistinguished from the evil message and accursed spell that Satan has\nbrought to the nations of the world instead of it, that they have no\nFather, but only \"a consuming fire\" ready to devour them, unless they\nare delivered from its raging flame by some scheme of pardon for all,\nfor which they are to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the Son.\n\nSupposing this first article of the true Gospel agreed to, how would the\nblessing that closes the epistles of that Gospel become intelligible and\nliving, instead of dark and dead: \"The grace of Christ, and the _love_\nof God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,\"--the most _tender_ word\nbeing that used of the Father!\n\n\n\n\n                                  VI\n\n                  [Greek: hagiastheto to onoma sou.]\n\n                     _Sanctificetur nomen tuum._\n\n\n                                        BRANTWOOD, _12th July, 1879_.\n\nI wonder how many, even of those who honestly and attentively join in\nour Church services, attach any distinct idea to the second clause of\nthe Lord's Prayer--the _first petition_ of it--the first thing that they\nare ordered by Christ to seek of their Father?\n\nAm I unjust in thinking that most of them have little more notion on the\nmatter than that God has forbidden \"bad language,\" and wishes them to\npray that everybody may be respectful to Him?\n\nIs it any otherwise with the Third Commandment? Do not most look on it\nmerely in the light of the statute on swearing? and read the words\n\"will not hold him guiltless\" merely as a passionless intimation that\nhowever carelessly a man may let out a round oath, there really _is_\nsomething wrong in it?\n\nOn the other hand, can anything be more tremendous than the words\nthemselves--double-negatived:\n\n    \"[Greek: ou gar me katharise ... kurios]\"?\n\nFor _other_ sins there is washing;--for this--none! the seventh verse\n(Exod. xx.), in the Septuagint, marking the real power rather than the\nEnglish, which (I suppose) is literal to the Hebrew.\n\nTo my layman's mind, of practical needs in the present state of the\nChurch, nothing is so immediate as that of explaining to the\ncongregation the meaning of being gathered in His name, and having Him\nin the midst of them; as, on the other hand, of being gathered in\nblasphemy of His name, and having the devil in the midst of\nthem--presiding over the prayers which have become an abomination.\n\nFor the entire body of the texts in the Gospel against hypocrisy are one\nand all nothing but the expansion of the threatening that closes the\nThird Commandment. For as \"the name whereby He shall be called is THE\nLORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,\"--so the taking that name in vain is the sum of\n\"the deceivableness of _un_righteousness in them that perish.\"\n\nWithout dwelling on the possibility--which I do not myself, however, for\na moment doubt--of an honest clergyman's being able actually to prevent\nthe entrance among his congregation of persons leading openly wicked\nlives, could any subject be more vital to the purposes of your meetings\nthan the difference between the present and the probable state of the\nChristian Church which would result, were it more the effort of zealous\nparish priests, instead of getting wicked _poor_ people to _come_ to\nchurch, to get wicked rich ones to stay out of it?\n\nLest, in any discussion of such question, it might be, as it too often\nis, alleged that \"the Lord looketh upon the heart,\" etc, let me be\npermitted to say--with as much positiveness as may express my deepest\nconviction--that, while indeed it is the Lord's business to look upon\nthe heart, it is the pastor's to look upon the hands and the lips; and\nthat the foulest oaths of the thief and the street-walker are, in the\nears of God, sinless as the hawk's cry, or the gnat's murmur, compared\nto the responses, in the Church service, on the lips of the usurer and\nthe adulterer, who have destroyed, not their own souls only, but those\nof the outcast ones whom they have made their victims.\n\nIt is for the meeting of Clergymen themselves--not for a layman\naddressing them--to ask further, how much the name of God may be taken\nin vain, and profaned instead of hallowed--_in_ the pulpit, as well as\nunder it.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                 VII\n\n                   [Greek: eltheto he basileia sou.]\n\n                       _Adveniat regnum tuum._\n\n\n                                         BRANTWOOD, _14th July, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--Sincere thanks for both your letters and the proofs\nsent. Your comment and conducting link, when needed, will be of the\ngreatest help and value, I am well assured, suggesting what you know\nwill be the probable feeling of your hearers, and the point that will\ncome into question.\n\nYes, certainly, that \"His\" in the fourth line[4] was meant to imply that\neternal presence of Christ; as in another passage,[5] referring to the\nCreation, \"when His right hand strewed the snow on Lebanon, and\nsmoothed the slopes of Calvary;\" but in so far as we dwell on that\ntruth, \"Hast thou seen _Me_, Philip, and not the Father?\"[6] we are not\nteaching the people what is specially the Gospel of _Christ_ as having a\ndistinct function, namely, to _serve_ the Father, and do the Father's\nwill. And in all His human relations to us, and commands to us, it is as\nthe Son of Man, not as the \"power of God and wisdom of God,\" that He\nacts and speaks. Not as the Power; for _He_ must pray, like one of us.\nNot as the Wisdom; for He must not know \"if it be possible\" His prayer\nshould be heard.\n\n     [4] In a proof sheet of a book of the Editor's at that time in the\n     press.\n\n     [5] Referring to the closing sentence of the third paragraph of the\n     fifth letter, which _seemed_ to express what I felt could not be\n     Mr. Ruskin's full meaning, I pointed out to him the following\n     sentence in \"Modern Painters:\"--\n\n         \"When, in the desert, Jesus was girding Himself for the work of\n         life, angels of life came and ministered unto Him; now, in the\n         fair world, when He is girding Himself for the work of death,\n         the ministrants came to Him from the grave; but from the grave\n         conquered. One from the tomb under Abarim, which _His_ own hand\n         had sealed long ago; the other from the rest which He had\n         entered without seeing corruption.\"\n\n     On this I made a remark somewhat to the following effect: that I\n     felt sure Mr. Ruskin regarded the loving work of the Father and of\n     the Son as _equal_ in the forgiveness of sins and redemption of\n     mankind; that what is done by the Father is in reality done also by\n     the Son; and that it is by a mere accommodation to human infirmity\n     of understanding that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed to us\n     in language, inadequate indeed to convey divine truths, but still\n     the only language possible; and I asked whether some such feeling\n     was not present in his mind when he used the pronoun \"His\" in the\n     above passage from \"Modern Painters\" of the Son, where it would be\n     usually understood of the Father; and as a corollary, whether, in\n     the letter, he does not himself fully recognise the fact of the\n     redemption of the world by the loving self-sacrifice of the Son\n     being in entire concurrence with the equally loving will of the\n     Father. This, as well as I can recollect, is the origin of the\n     passage in the second paragraph in this seventh letter.--EDITOR OF\n     LETTERS.\n\n     [6] \"Yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath\n     seen the Father\" (John xiv. 9).--EDITOR.\n\nAnd in what I want to say of the third clause of His prayer (_His_, not\nmerely as His ordering, but His using), it is especially this comparison\nbetween _His_ kingdom, and His Father's, that I want to see the\ndisciples guarded against. I believe very few, even of the most earnest,\nusing that petition, realize that it is the Father's--not the\nSon's--kingdom, that they pray may come,--although the whole prayer is\nfoundational on that fact: \"_For_ Thine is the kingdom, the power, and\nthe glory.\" And I fancy that the mind of the most faithful Christian is\nquite led away from its proper hope, by dwelling on the reign--or the\ncoming again--of Christ; which, indeed, they are to look for, and\n_watch_ for, but not to pray for. Their prayer is to be for the greater\nkingdom to which He, risen and having all His enemies under His feet, is\nto surrender _His_, \"that God may be All in All.\"\n\nAnd, though the greatest, it is that everlasting kingdom which the\npoorest of us can advance. We cannot hasten Christ's coming. \"Of the day\nand the hour, knoweth no man.\" But the kingdom of God is as a grain of\nmustard-seed:--we can sow of it; it is as a foam-globe of leaven:--we\ncan mingle it; and its glory and its joy are that even the birds of the\nair can lodge in the branches thereof.\n\nForgive me for getting back to my sparrows; but truly in the present\nstate of England, the fowls of the air are the only creatures, tormented\nand murdered as they are, that yet have here and there nests, and peace,\nand joy in the Holy Ghost. And it would be well if many of us, in\nreading that text, \"The kingdom of God is NOT meat and drink,\" had even\ngot so far as to the understanding that it is at least _as much_, and\nthat until we had fed the hungry, there was no power in us to inspire\nthe unhappy.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\nI will write my feeling about the pieces of the Life of Christ[7] you\nhave sent me in a private letter. I may say at once that I am sure it\nwill do much good, and will be upright and intelligible, which how few\nreligious writings are?\n\n     [7] The Life and Work of Jesus Christ. Ward and Lock.\n\n\n\n\n                                 VIII\n\n    [Greek: genetheto to thelema sou, hos en ourano, kai epi ges.]\n\n           _Fiat voluntas tua sicut in coelo et in terra._\n\n\n                                        BRANTWOOD, _9th August, 1879_.\n\nI was reading the second chapter of Malachi this morning by chance, and\nwondering how many clergymen ever read it, and took to heart the\n\"commandment for _them_.\"\n\nFor they are always ready enough to call themselves priests (though they\nknow themselves to be nothing of the sort), whenever there is any\ndignity to be got out of the title; but, whenever there is any good,\nhot scolding or unpleasant advice given them by the prophets, in that\nself-assumed character of theirs, they are as ready to quit it as ever\nDionysus his lion-skin, when he finds the character of Herakles\ninconvenient.\n\n\"Ye have wearied the Lord with your words;\" (yes, and some of His people\ntoo, in your time), \"yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied Him? When ye\nsay, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He\ndelighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?\"\n\nHow many, again and again I wonder, of the lively young ecclesiastics\nsupplied to the increasing demand of our west ends of flourishing Cities\nof the Plain, ever consider what sort of sin it is for which God (unless\nthey lay it to heart) will \"curse their blessings, and spread dung upon\ntheir faces;\" or have understood, even in the dimmest manner, what part\n_they_ had taken, and were taking, in \"corrupting the covenant of the\nLord with Levi, and causing many to stumble at the Law.\"\n\nPerhaps the most subtle and unconscious way in which the religious\nteachers upon whom the ends of the world are come, have done this, is in\nnever telling their people the meaning of the clause in the Lord's\nPrayer, which, of all others, their most earnest hearers have oftenest\non their lips: \"Thy will be done.\" They allow their people to use it as\nif their Father's will were always to kill their babies, or do something\nunpleasant to them; and following comfort and wealth, instead of\nexplaining to them that the first and intensest article of their\nFather's will was their own sanctification; and that the one only path\nto national prosperity and to domestic peace, was to understand what the\nwill of the Lord was, and to do all they could to get it done. Whereas\none would think, by the tone of the eagerest preachers nowadays, that\nthey held their blessed office to be that, not of showing men how to do\ntheir Father's will on earth, but how to get to heaven without doing any\nof it either here or there!\n\nI say, especially, the most eager preachers; for nearly the whole\nMissionary body (with the hottest Evangelistic sect of the English\nChurch) is at this moment composed of men who think the Gospel they are\nto carry to mend the world with, forsooth, is that, \"If any man sin, he\nhath an Advocate with the Father;\" while I have never yet, in my own\nexperience, met either with a Missionary or a Town Bishop who so much\nas professed himself \"to understand what the will of the Lord\" was, far\nless to teach anybody else to do it; and for fifty preachers, yes, and\nfifty hundreds whom I have heard proclaiming the Mediator of the New\nTestament, that \"they which were called might receive the promise of\neternal inheritance,\" I have never yet heard so much as _one_ heartily\nproclaiming against all those \"deceivers with vain words\" (Eph. v. 6),\nthat \"no covetous person which is an idolater, hath _any_ inheritance in\nthe kingdom of Christ, or of God;\" and on myself personally and publicly\nchallenging the Bishops of England generally, and by name the Bishop of\nManchester, to say whether usury was, or was not, according to the will\nof God, I have received no answer from any one of them.[8]\n\n     [8] Fors Clavigera, Letter lxxxii., p. 323.\n\n\n\n                                                        _13th August._\n\nI have allowed myself, in the beginning of this letter, to dwell on the\nequivocal use of the word \"Priest\" in the English Church (see\n\"Christopher Harvey,\" Grosart's edition, p. 38), because the assumption\nof the mediatorial, in defect of the pastoral, office by the clergy\nfulfils itself, naturally and always, in their pretending to absolve the\nsinner from his punishment, instead of purging him from his sin; and\npractically, in their general patronage and encouragement of all the\niniquity of the world, by steadily preaching away the penalties of it.\nSo that the great cities of the earth, which ought to be the places set\non its hills, with the Temple of the Lord in the midst of them, to which\nthe tribes should go up,--centres to the Kingdoms and Provinces of\nHonour, Virtue, and the Knowledge of the law of God,--have become,\ninstead, loathsome centres of fornication and covetousness--the smoke of\ntheir sin going up into the face of heaven like the furnace of Sodom,\nand the pollution of it rotting and raging through the bones and the\nsouls of the peasant people round them, as if they were each a volcano\nwhose ashes broke out in blains upon man and upon beast.\n\nAnd in the midst of them, their freshly-set-up steeples ring the crowd\nto a weekly prayer that the rest of their lives may be pure and holy,\nwhile they have not the slightest intention of purifying, sanctifying,\nor changing their lives in any the smallest particular; and their clergy\ngather, each into himself, the curious dual power, and Janus-faced\nmajesty in mischief, of the prophet that prophesies falsely, and the\npriest that bears rule by his means.\n\nAnd the people love to have it so.\n\n\n\n\n                                             BRANTWOOD, _12th August_.\n\nI am very glad of your little note from Brighton. I thought it needless\nto send the two letters there, which you will find at home; and they\npretty nearly end all _I_ want to say; for the remaining clauses of the\nprayer touch on things too high for me. But I will send you one\nconcluding letter about them.\n\n\n\n\n                                  IX\n\n      [Greek: ton arton hemon ton epiousion dos hemin semeron.]\n\n             _Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie._\n\n\n                                             BRANTWOOD, _19th August_.\n\nI retained the foregoing letter by me till now, lest you should think it\nwritten in any haste or petulance: but it is every word of it\ndeliberate, though expressing the bitterness of twenty years of vain\nsorrow and pleading concerning these things. Nor am I able to write,\notherwise, anything of the next following clause of the prayer;--for no\nwords could be burning enough to tell the evils which have come on the\nworld from men's using it thoughtlessly and blasphemously, praying God\nto give them what they are deliberately resolved to steal. For all true\nChristianity is known--as its Master was--in breaking of bread, and all\nfalse Christianity in stealing it.\n\nLet the clergyman only apply--with impartial and level sweep--to his\ncongregation the great pastoral order: \"The man that will not work,\nneither should he eat;\" and be resolute in requiring each member of his\nflock to tell him _what_--day by day--they do to earn their\ndinners;--and he will find an entirely new view of life and its\nsacraments open upon him and them.\n\nFor the man who is not--day by day--doing work which will earn his\ndinner, must be stealing his dinner; and the actual fact is, that the\ngreat mass of men calling themselves Christians do actually live by\nrobbing the poor of their bread, and by no other trade whatsoever; and\nthe simple examination of the mode of the produce and consumption of\nEuropean food--who digs for it, and who eats it--will prove that to any\nhonest human soul.\n\nNor is it possible for any Christian Church to exist but in pollutions\nand hypocrisies beyond all words, until the virtues of a life moderate\nin its self-indulgence, and wide in its offices of temporal ministry to\nthe poor, are insisted on as the normal conditions in which, only, the\nprayer to God for the harvest of the earth is other than blasphemy.\n\nIn the second place. Since in the parable in Luke, the bread asked for\nis shown to be also, and chiefly, the Holy Spirit (Luke xi. 13), and the\nprayer, \"Give us each day our daily bread\" is, in its fulness, the\ndisciples' \"Lord, evermore give us _this_ bread,\"--the clergyman's\nquestion to his whole flock, primarily literal, \"Children, have ye here\nany meat?\" must ultimately be always the greater spiritual one:\n\"Children, have ye here any Holy Spirit?\" or, \"Have ye not heard yet\nwhether there _be_ any? and, instead of a Holy Ghost the Lord and Giver\nof Life, do you only believe in an unholy mammon, Lord and Giver of\nDeath?\"\n\nThe opposition between the two Lords has been, and will be as long as\nthe world lasts, absolute, irreconcilable, mortal; and the clergyman's\nfirst message to his people of this day is--if he be faithful--\"Choose\nye this day, whom ye will serve.\"\n\n                                    Ever faithfully yours,\n                                                     J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                  X\n\n        [Greek: kai aphes hemin ta opheilemata hemon, hos kai\n               hemeis aphiemen tois opheiletais hemon.]\n\n       _Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus\n                        debitoribus nostris._\n\n\n                                           BRANTWOOD, _3rd September_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I have been very long before trying to say so much\nas a word about the sixth clause of the Pater; for whenever I began\nthinking of it, I was stopped by the sorrowful sense of the hopeless\ntask you poor clergymen had, nowadays, in recommending and teaching\npeople to love their enemies, when their whole energies were already\ndevoted to swindling their friends.\n\nBut, in any days, past or now, the clause is one of such difficulty,\nthat, to understand it, means almost to know the love of God which\npasseth knowledge.\n\nBut, at all events, it is surely the pastor's duty to prevent his flock\nfrom _mis_-understanding it; and above all things to keep them from\nsupposing that God's forgiveness is to be had simply for the asking, by\nthose who \"wilfully sin after they have received the knowledge of the\ntruth.\"\n\nThere is one very simple lesson, also, needed especially by people in\ncircumstances of happy life, which I have never heard fully enforced\nfrom the pulpit, and which is usually the more lost sight of, because\nthe fine and inaccurate word \"trespasses\" is so often used instead of\nthe simple and accurate one, \"debts.\" Among people well educated and\nhappily circumstanced, it may easily chance that long periods of their\nlives pass without any such conscious sin as could, on any discovery or\nmemory of it, make them cry out, in truth and in pain, \"I have sinned\nagainst the Lord.\" But scarcely an hour of their happy days can pass\nover them without leaving--were their hearts open--some evidence written\nthere that they have \"left undone the things that they ought to have\ndone,\" and giving them bitterer and heavier cause to cry and cry\nagain--for ever, in the pure words of their Master's prayer, \"Dimitte\nnobis _debita_ nostra.\"\n\nIn connection with the more accurate translation of \"debts,\" rather than\n\"trespasses,\" it would surely be well to keep constantly in the mind of\ncomplacent and inoffensive congregations, that in Christ's own prophecy\nof the manner of the last judgment, the condemnation is pronounced only\non the sins of omission: \"I was hungry, and ye gave Me no meat.\"\n\nBut, whatever the manner of sin, by offence or defect, which the\npreacher fears in his people, surely he has of late been wholly remiss\nin compelling their definite recognition of it, in its several and\npersonal particulars. Nothing in the various inconsistency of human\nnature is more grotesque than its willingness to be taxed with any\nquantity of sins in the gross, and its resentment at the insinuation of\nhaving committed the smallest parcel of them in detail. And the English\nLiturgy, evidently drawn up with the amiable intention of making\nreligion as pleasant as possible to a people desirous of saving their\nsouls with no great degree of personal inconvenience, is perhaps in no\npoint more unwholesomely lenient than in its concession to the popular\nconviction that we may obtain the present advantage, and escape the\nfuture punishment, of any sort of iniquity, by dexterously concealing\nthe manner of it from man, and triumphantly confessing the quantity of\nit to God.\n\nFinally, whatever the advantages and decencies of a form of prayer, and\nhow wide soever the scope given to its collected passages, it cannot be\nat one and the same time fitted for the use of a body of well-taught and\nexperienced Christians, such as should join the services of a Church\nnineteen centuries old,--and adapted to the needs of the timid sinner\nwho has that day first entered its porch, or of the remorseful publican\nwho has only recently become sensible of his call to a pew.\n\nAnd surely our clergy need not be surprised at the daily increasing\ndistrust in the public mind of the efficacy of Prayer, after having so\nlong insisted on their offering supplication, _at least_ every Sunday\nmorning at eleven o'clock, that the rest of their lives hereafter might\nbe pure and holy, leaving them conscious all the while that they would\nbe similarly required to inform the Lord next week, at the same hour,\nthat \"there was no health in them\"!\n\nAmong the much rebuked follies and abuses of so-called \"Ritualism,\" none\nthat I have heard of are indeed so dangerously and darkly \"Ritual\" as\nthis piece of authorized mockery of the most solemn act of human life,\nand only entrance of eternal life--Repentance.\n\n                     Believe me, dear Mr. Malleson,\n                        Ever faithfully and respectfully yours,\n                                                          J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                  XI\n\n [Greek: kai me eisenegkes hemas eis peirasmon, alla rhusai hemas apo\n  tou ponerou; hoti sou estin he basileia kai he dunamis kai he doxa\n                        eis tous aionas; amen.]\n\n _Et ne nos inducas in tentationem; sed libera nos a malo; Quia tuum\n     est regmum, potentia, et gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen._\n\n\n\n                                    BRANTWOOD, _14th September, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--The gentle words in your last letter referring to\nthe difference between yourself and me in the degree of hope with which\nyou could regard what could not but appear to the general mind Utopian\nin designs for the action of the Christian Church, surely might best be\nanswered by appeal to the consistent tone of the prayer we have been\nexamining.\n\nIs not every one of its petitions for a perfect state? and is not this\nlast clause of it, of which we are to think to-day--if fully\nunderstood--a petition not only for the restoration of Paradise, but of\nParadise in which there shall be no deadly fruit, or, at least, no\ntempter to praise it? And may we not admit that it is probably only for\nwant of the earnest use of this last petition, that not only the\npreceding ones have become formal with us, but that the private and\nsimply restricted prayer for the little things we each severally desire,\nhas become by some Christians dreaded and unused, and by others used\nfaithlessly, and therefore with disappointment?\n\nAnd is it not for want of this special directness and simplicity of\npetition, and of the sense of its acceptance, that the whole nature of\nprayer has been doubted in our hearts, and disgraced by our lips; that\nwe are afraid to ask God's blessing on the earth, when the scientific\npeople tell us He has made previous arrangements to curse it; and that,\ninstead of obeying, without fear or debate, the plain order, \"Ask, and\nye shall receive, that your joy may be full,\" we sorrowfully sink back\ninto the apology for prayer, that \"it is a wholesome exercise, even when\nfruitless,\" and that we ought piously always to suppose that the text\nreally means no more than \"Ask, and ye shall _not_ receive, that your\njoy may be _empty_\"?\n\nSupposing we were first all of us quite sure that we _had_ prayed,\nhonestly, the prayer against temptation, and that we would thankfully be\nrefused anything we had set our hearts upon, if indeed God saw that it\nwould lead us into evil, might we not have confidence afterwards that He\nin whose hand the King's heart is, as the rivers of water, would turn\nour tiny little hearts also in the way that they should go, and that\n_then_ the special prayer for the joys He taught them to seek, would be\nanswered to the last syllable, and to overflowing?\n\nIt is surely scarcely necessary to say, farther, what the holy teachers\nof all nations have invariably concurred in showing,--that faithful\nprayer implies always correlative exertion; and that no man can ask\nhonestly or hopefully to be delivered from temptation, unless he has\nhimself honestly and firmly determined to do the best he can to keep out\nof it. But, in modern days, the first aim of all Christian parents is to\nplace their children in circumstances where the temptations (which they\nare apt to call \"opportunities\") may be as great and as many as\npossible; where the sight and promise of \"all these things\" in Satan's\ngift may be brilliantly near; and where the act of \"falling down to\nworship me\" may be partly concealed by the shelter, and partly excused,\nas involuntary, by the pressure, of the concurrent crowd.\n\nIn what respect the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of _them_,\ndiffer from the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, which are God's for\never, is seldom, as far as I have heard, intelligibly explained from the\npulpit; and still less the irreconcilable hostility between the two\nroyalties and realms asserted in its sternness of decision.\n\nWhether it be indeed Utopian to believe that the kingdom we are taught\nto pray for _may_ come--verily come--for the asking, it is surely not\nfor man to judge; but it is at least at his choice to resolve that he\nwill no longer render obedience, nor ascribe glory and power, to the\nDevil. If he cannot find strength in himself to advance towards Heaven,\nhe may at least say to the power of Hell, \"Get thee behind me;\" and\nstaying himself on the testimony of Him who saith, \"Surely I come\nquickly,\" ratify his happy prayer with the faithful \"Amen, even so,\ncome, Lord Jesus.\"\n\n                           Ever, my dear friend,\n                               Believe me affectionately\n                                       and gratefully yours,\n                                                     J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                         ESSAYS AND COMMENTS\n\n                                ON THE\n\n                          FOREGOING LETTERS\n\n                            BY THE EDITOR\n\n\n\n\n                         ESSAYS AND COMMENTS\n\n\nFeeling deeply, and anxiously, the greatness of the responsibility laid\nupon me to act, as it were, the part of an envoy between so eminent a\nteacher as Mr. Ruskin and my brethren in the Ministry, I have thought\nthat it might not be taken amiss if I prefaced my account of the origin\nof the series of letters placed in my hands for publication (see Letter\n8th July, 1879)[9] with just a mere allusion to one written to me four\nyears ago.\n\n     [9] No. IV.\n\nOne or two imperfect conversations, leading up to the subject of the\nResurrection, which had been broken off by accidental circumstances,\ntogether with the letter alluded to, had stimulated in me a feeling of\nsomething more than curiosity--rather one of anxious interest--to learn\nmore of Mr. Ruskin's views upon matters which are at the present day\ngiving rise to a good deal of agitated discussion among intellectual\nmen.\n\nI am thankful to be able to avow that, for my own part, I am a firm and\nconscientious, not a thoughtless and passive, believer in the doctrines\nof the Church of Christ as held by the majority of serious-minded\nreligious men in the Established Church. Mr. Ruskin was mistaken in his\nmuch too ready assumption that I (simply because I am a clergyman) am a\nbeliever on compulsion; that for the peace of my soul I have only to\nthank religious anaesthetics, and that I ever preach against the\nwickedness of involuntary doubt. God forbid that I should ever take on\nmyself to denounce as wilful sin any scruples of conscience which owe\ntheir origin to honest inquiries after truth. I trust that he knows me\nbetter now.\n\nFeeling thus decided and certain as to the ground I stand upon, and\nearnestly desirous on every account to investigate the nature of Mr.\nRuskin's doubts, whatever they might be, in a most fraternal spirit, as\na kindly-favoured friend and neighbour (for, in our lake and mountain\ndistrict, an interval of a dozen miles does not destroy neighbourhood\nbetween spirits with any degree of kinship), I sought for a more\nlengthened conversation, and obtained the opportunity without\ndifficulty. The occasion was found in a very delightful summer afternoon\non the lake, and up the sides of the Old Man of Coniston, to view a\ngroup of remarkable rocks by the desolate, storm-beaten crags of Goat's\nWater,[10] that saddest and loneliest of mountain tarns, which lies in\nthe deep hollow between the mountain and its opposing buttress, the Dow\nCrags. This most interesting ramble in the undivided company of one so\nhighly and so deservedly valued in the world of letters and of art and\nhigher matters yet, served to my mind for more purposes than one, while\nwe wandered amidst impressive scenes, passing from the sweet and gentle\npeaceful loveliness of the bright green vale of Coniston and its\ncharming lake to the bleak desolation, the terrible sublimity of the\nmountain tarn barriered in by its stupendous crags, amongst which lay\nthose singular-looking, weather-beaten, and lightning-riven rocks which\nwere the more immediate object of our visit.\n\n     [10] \"Deucalion,\" p. 222.\n\nBut to myself the chief and happiest result of our conversation was the\nfirm conviction that neither the censorious and unthinking world, nor\nperhaps even Mr. Ruskin himself, knows how deeply and truly a Christian\nman, in the widest sense of the word, Mr. Ruskin is. It is neither the\ntime nor the place, nor indeed would it be consistent with propriety, to\nanalyze before others the convictions formed on that memorable summer\nafternoon. It must suffice for the present to say that the opinions then\nformed laid the foundation of a friendship on a happier basis than that\nwhich had heretofore been permitted me, and prepared my way to enter\nwith confidence upon the plan of which the present volume is the fruit.\n\nLast June, in the course of a short visit to Brantwood, I proposed to\nMr. Ruskin to come to address the members of a Northern Clerical\nSociety, a body of some seventy or eighty clergy, who have done me the\nhonour to appoint me their honorary secretary, now for about nine\nyears, since its foundation. On the ground of impaired health, the\nlegacy left behind it by the serious illness which had, two years\nbefore, threatened even his life, Mr. Ruskin excused himself from\nappearing in person before our Society; but proposed instead to write\nletters to me which might serve as a basis for discussion amongst us.\n\nLetter I. will explain the origin of the series that come after.\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER II\n\n\nThe question laid down in this letter, cleared of all metaphorical\nornament, is, as is perfectly natural and instinctive with Mr. Ruskin,\none which goes down to the foundation of things--here, the character and\nmission of the Christian ministry. Are we (Mr. Ruskin implies, Are we\n_not_?) bound to believe and to teach after certain formulae, which,\nbeing many of them peculiar to ourselves, separate us from the national\nChurches of France and Italy? Are we free, or are we bound? Or do we\nenjoy a reasonable amount of liberty and no more? On the platform we\noccupy do we allow none but English Churchmen to stand? Must we keep all\nother Christians at arm's length? Do the conditions attached to the\nemoluments we receive prohibit us from holding or teaching any other\nopinions than those we have subscribed to?\n\nIt is a question not to be approached without a tremor. But no abstract\nanswer can well be given. Human nature replies for itself in the\nspectacle of the clergy of the Church of England divided and subdivided;\nhere deeply sundered, there of different complexions amicably blending\ntogether, holding every variety of opinion which the Church allows or\ndisallows within her borders. Human nature absolutely refuses to be\nshackled in its positive beliefs. Authority may try, or even appear to\nperform, the feat of fettering thought and making men march in step to\none common end in orderly ranks; but she has invariably at last to\nconfess her impotence.[11]\n\n     [11] The clergyman who subscribes still whispers to himself, or\n     soon will, \"Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.\"\n\nThe ministers of the Church cannot safely be set free by Act of\nParliament to teach whatever seems good to each. Some respect must be\nshown to congregations too. If the clergy claim on their side the right\nof independent thought, which they are quite justified in doing, the\ncongregations on their side have a much greater right to a consistent\nteaching, which shall not distract their minds with strange and unwonted\nforms of Christianity.\n\nMr. Ruskin, as he often does, is going _too deep_. He asks for that\nwhich we shall never see in this world,--the simple, pure religion of\nthe Bible to be taught in all singleness and simplicity of mind by men\nwhose only commission is held from God, by or without the channel of\nhuman authority, to show men, women, and children the way \"to the summit\nof the celestial mountains,\" and to set an awful warning by conspicuous\nbeacons against the \"crevasses which go down quickest to the pit.\" But\nwho shall say that he is wrong? Nay, rather, it is we that are wrong in\nresting satisfied with our low views of things, while Ruskin soars above\nour heads.\n\n\n\n\n                            ON LETTER III\n\n\nI would preface the few remarks I wish to make upon this letter by an\nextract from a letter just received from a dear good friend:\n\n     \"I have already read these deeply interesting letters five times.\n     They are like 'the foam-globes of leaven.' I must say they have\n     exercised my mind very much. Things in them which at first seem\n     rather startling, prove on closer examination to be full of deep\n     truth. The suggestions in them lead to 'great searchings of heart.'\n     There is much with which I entirely agree; much over which to\n     ponder. What an insight into human nature is shown in the remark\n     that though we are so ready to call ourselves 'miserable sinners'\n     we resent being accused of any special fault!\n\n                                                            \"S. B.\"\n\nBy the side of this, it will be instructive, though strange, if I place\nan extract from another note from one whom I have long known and highly\nesteemed; and it will be seen what a singular \"discerner of hearts\" and\n\"divider of spirits\" is this series of letters:--\n\n     \"If they are really meant _au serieux_, I could not express any\n     opinion of them without implying a reflection upon you also, as you\n     seem to endorse them so fully. I prefer, therefore, to say merely\n     that, as a whole, they offer one of the most remarkable instances I\n     ever met with of the old adage, 'Ne sutor ultra crepidam.'\"[12]\n\n     [12] Let me say here, once for all, that I have already three times\n     had this proverb quoted against Mr. Ruskin; and no proverb could be\n     more remote from the purpose. For while it is the shoemaker's\n     business, _as a livelihood_, to make shoes, a painter's to paint\n     pictures, the merchant's to sell goods, and perhaps Mr. Ruskin's to\n     write books which every one reads, _religion is everybody's\n     business_. Christian men and women, of all classes and professions,\n     make the Bible their study, because of its inestimable importance;\n     and who shall say that they are not absolutely right? For my part I\n     should be very glad to hear that my bootmaker was a religious man:\n     his boots would be none the worse for it. I hope the _sutor_ will\n     be brought in no more, unless he can appear with a better grace.\n\n\nIn spite of this I retain all my old high opinion of the writer of these\nlines, and feel convinced that he will soon think very differently.\n\nYes, it is as my first correspondent has said, \"Things which at first\nseem startling, on examination prove to be full of deep truth.\" In the\nshort compass of this Letter III. lies enfolded a vast question, which,\nin the midst of the friction and conflict of ages of strife, has been\nshuffled away into odd corners, to be brought out into life only now and\nthen, when a man is born into the world who sees what few will even\nglance at, and who will say out that which ought to be spoken, though\nbut few may listen. What is the question which is put here so tersely\nand so pointedly? It is this, which I am only putting a little\ndifferently, not with the most distant idea of improving upon Mr.\nRuskin's felicitous touches; but, because expressed in twofold fashion,\nwhat has escaped one may strike another in a different form.\n\nIs a clergyman of the Church of England a teacher of the doctrine and\npractice and discipline of the Church of England within her limits only,\nnarrow as they are, when compared with Christendom? or is there not\nrather a wider, more comprehensive Church yet--that of Christ upon\nearth--which he must serve, which he must preach, in forgetfulness of\nthe limited boundaries within which by his education and his ordination\nvows he is _apparently_ bound to remain? Is there not enough of\nChristianity common to all the Christian nations upon earth, and which\nought to be made the subject of teaching to the ignorant and the\ncastaway? Is it quite a right thing that the natives of Madagascar, for\ninstance, should see parties of missionaries arriving amongst them: one,\nin all the gorgeous trappings and with all the elaborate ritual of Rome;\nanother in rusty black coats and hats and dirty white neckties,\nrepudiating all but the very barest necessary ceremonial; a third,\npossibly disunited in itself, coming as High Churchmen or Low Churchmen,\nwith differing peculiarities? Is this an edifying spectacle for the\nMalagasy? And can the Gospel be preached as effectually in this highly\ndiversified fashion as it would be with the simplicity of a reasonable\nand just sufficiently elastic uniformity?\n\nComing before many people of infinite diversity of mind, it cannot be\ndoubted that Christianity must necessarily take a variety of forms, to\nsuit different intelligences, and adapt itself to differing situations.\nBut in all this large variety of forms of religion, ranging from mere\npaganism at one end, just a little unavoidably altered by the contact of\nChristianity, and at the other extremity a pure religion, but refined\nand intellectual, I do not see exactly what is the form of Christianity\nwhich the Church of England is to preach to the masses at home and\nabroad. As long as England takes the Gospel to the ignorant in such\ninfinitely diversified forms, it is as if an incapable general were to\ndivide his forces preparatory to an assault upon a compact and\nwell-defended stronghold.\n\nIt is enough to make one weep with vexation and humiliation to see what\nsort of religion would be presented to the world if some who claim to\nhave all truth on their side could have their own way. I say to have the\ntruth on their side,--which is a very different thing from being on the\nside of truth. There is even a new religion--for it is certainly not the\nold--growing popular with \"thinkers,\" who write and read in the three\ngreat half-crown monthlies, which is evolved in the most curious\nvariety out of their inner consciousness by religion-makers, whose\nfertile brains are the only soil that can bring forth such productions.\nWhat is the vast uneducated world to do with these extraordinary forms\nof religion which are as many-sided and many-faced as their inventors?\n\nNow Mr. Ruskin and many others see this state of things with pity and\ncompassion, and ask, \"Cannot this Gospel of Christ be put into such\nplain words and short terms as that a plain man may understand it?\" Why\nis there no such easy summary provided by authority to teach the poor\nand simple? The Apostles' Creed is good for its own end and purpose, but\nit requires great expansion to be made to include Gospel teaching, and\nit contains nothing practical. The Thirty-nine Articles are not even\nintended (as Mr. Ruskin by some oversight seems to think they are) to be\na summary of the Gospel. We have no concise and plain, clear and\nintelligible form of sound words to answer this most important end. The\nChurch Catechism, from old associations, belongs to childhood.\n\nEvery reasonable person must agree with Mr. Ruskin, that there could be\nno harm, but much good, in Christians making a little less of their\nChurchmanship, and a little more of their broad Christianity.\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER IV\n\n\nMr. Ruskin pleads in this letter with touching eloquence for the\nguidance of the law of love, that irresistible law, one effect of which\nis to give to the highest probability the force of a sufficient\ncertainty, and establishes in the man the mental habit best described as\n_certitude_.\n\nIn Cardinal Newman's \"History of My Religious Opinions,\" p. 18, he\nquotes some beautiful passages from Keble's conversations with himself\n(disagreeing with him all the time), in which he had quoted, \"I will\nguide thee _with mine eye_\" (Psalm xxxii. 8), as the expression of the\ngentle suasive power that directs the steps of the child and friend of\nGod, as distinguished from \"the bit and bridle\" laid upon horse and\nmule, who represent unwilling slaves recognising no law but that of\nforce or coercion. It is an Eye whose gaze is ever fixed on us, the \"Eye\nof God's Word,\" \"like that of a portrait uniformly fixed on us, turn\nwhere we will.\"[13] And Keble is right so far as concerns the true\nchildren and friends of God, subject, as their highest control, to the\nlaw of love. Pure and exalted minds ever strain for, and yearn after, a\ngeneral and outward manifestation of the witness that man is \"the image\nand glory of God\" (1 Cor. xi. 7).\n\n     [13] \"Christian Year,\" St. Bartholomew's Day, with quotations from\n     Miller's Bampton Lectures.\n\nUnhappily, we are not so constituted by nature. The inroads and ravages\nof sin are but too evident, as well in those upon whom episcopal hands\nhave been laid, as in the ranks of the laity. Are not wilfulness and\npride of intellect and glorification of self ever exercising such a\npower in the earth, that checks and restraints are found absolutely\nnecessary to curb and control the determination of many of the ministers\nof the Church not only to _think_ as seems good to them (which they have\na perfect right to do), but openly to _teach and to preach_ whatever\ndoctrines they may have conceived in their own minds, or have learnt\nfrom others, contrary to the received doctrines of the Church of\nEngland; which they have no right to do as long as they remain ministers\nof the Church whose doctrines they impugn?\n\nMr. Ruskin correctly assumes that the terms of the Lord's Prayer, being\nin the very words of Christ, do contain a body of Divine doctrine; and\nthey would be the fittest to adopt as a standard of Christian teaching,\n_if_ only all men were as candid, sincere, and straightforward as\nhimself. But because there is no certainty that any large and\npreponderating body of men will exhibit these graces of Christianity in\nthemselves, and combine with them gentleness, tolerance, and\nforbearance, therefore they _must_ be held in \"with bit and\nbridle,\"--that is, with Articles and Creeds and declarations,--\"lest\nthey fall upon thee,\" and fill the Church more full of sedition,\ndisaffection, and disquiet than it already is.\n\nCardinal Newman himself is an example of the necessity of the restraints\nof creeds, as well, indeed, as of their general inefficiency to\nmaintain unity. His \"History of my Religious Opinions,\" at least in its\nbeginning, is but the story of a long succession of phases of belief and\ndisbelief, originating in--what? In study of the Word of God? in Divine\ncontemplation, or in devout and thoughtful meditation? No, indeed; but\nin walks and conversations, now with one friend, now with another, now\nround the Quadrangle of Oriel, then in Christ Church meadows; in\nfanciful, and apparently causeless, changes in his own mind, of which\nsometimes he can give the exact date, sometimes he has forgotten it, but\nwhich lead him out of one set of opinions into another in a helpless\nkind of way, as if he knew of no motive power but the influence of other\nmen's minds or the momentary and fitful fluctuations of a spirit ever\ntoo much given to introspection to maintain a steady and uniform course.\n\nWhat a contrast between the downright, manly straightforwardness of a\nRuskin and the fluttering, uncertain flights of a Newman, ending in the\ncold, dead fixity of the Roman faith, whereof to doubt is to be damned!\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER V\n\n\nThe next paragraph to the last in this letter, contains a statement\nwhich at first might seem to be rashly expressed. But I was not long in\napprehending that when Mr. Ruskin alludes to a scheme of pardon \"for\nwhich we are supposed to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the\nSon,\" he was far from impugning that doctrine of the Atonement in which,\nas it is generally understood among Christian people, the whole plan of\nsalvation centres.\n\nBut there seems to have been a fatality about this sentence. Numbers\nhave read it and commented upon it, myself amongst the number, as if Mr.\nRuskin were here expressing _his own view_; instead of which, he is here\nquoting other men's opinions, to condemn them with severity. The\n_Record_ called it some of Mr. Ruskin's dross; but it is other people's\ndross, for which he would offer us pure gold.\n\nI happened, a very short time previous to receiving this letter, to have\nhad my attention attracted by the following passage of Mr. Ruskin's\nown:--\"When, in the desert, He was girding Himself for the work of life,\nangels of life came and ministered to Him; now, in the fair world, when\nHe is girding Himself for the work of death [at the Transfiguration],\nthe ministrants came to Him from the grave. But from the grave\nconquered. One from that tomb under Abarim, which His own hand had\nsealed long ago; the other from the rest which He had entered without\nseeing corruption.\"\n\nPleased with the truthful eloquence of this passage, I placed it at the\nhead of the chapter on the Transfiguration in my book on the Life and\nWork of Christ (still in the press). Having done so, it struck me that\nMr. Ruskin, whether intentionally or undesignedly, had made the pronoun\n\"His\" to apply either to God the Father, or to God the Son. It may\ngrammatically refer to either. From this I drew the conclusion which I\nexpressed in a short letter to my friend, that, discarding the strictly\nhuman uses of language, which, from its unavoidable poverty, lacks the\npower of marking the true nature of the difference between the Divine\nPersons of the Holy Trinity, he had spoken of the Father and of the Son\nindiscriminately or indifferently, _i.e._, without a difference.\n\nAnd so it really is. How shall a man, though at the highest he be \"but a\nlittle lower than the angels,\" know and comprehend the Godhead in its\ntrue and exact nature? The names father and son express an earthly\nrelation perfectly well understood when belonging to ourselves, but when\napplied to the Supreme Divine Being, they must of necessity fall far\nshort of expressing their true connexion with one another. They are,\nwhen applied to Heavenly beings, merely anthropomorphic terms used in\ncompassion to our infirmities, and conveying to us only an approximation\nto the ideas intended. We say the Father sent the Son; the Son suffered\nfor our sins. But since Father and Son are One, we are plainly\nexpressing something short of the exact state of the case when we speak\nof our thankfulness to the Son as if we had no reason to be equally\nthankful to the Father.\n\nThe Athanasian Creed makes no great demand upon our mental powers when\nit requires of us, in speaking of the Trinity, neither to confound the\nPersons nor to divide the Substance; for, in truth, I suppose we are\nequally incapable of doing either.\n\nThese are Divine matters, of which, while the simplest may know enough,\nthe wisest can never fathom the whole depth. For the Divine power and\nlove, knowledge and compassion, will never be fully comprehended until\nwe know even as we are known.\n\nBut, as I am abstaining from questioning Mr. Ruskin as to his meaning in\nany passage, if it happens to be slightly obscure, awaiting his reply at\nthe close of the book, I may here say that I believe that this sentence\nrefers to a wild and unscriptural kind of preaching, happily becoming\nless common, in which undue stress is laid upon the wrathfulness of God,\nas contrasted with the mercy of the Saviour, as if we had only the Son\nto thank, and not our loving Father in Heaven, for the blessed hope of\neternal life. Some there are, and always will be, who habitually err in\nnot rightly dividing the Word of God, and giving undue prominence to a\ndark portion of doctrine, which is true enough in itself, but would be\nrelieved of much of its gloom, if due prominence were given to other\nparts of the truth of God.\n\nI do not mean to praise caution at the expense of courage. I have a\nconstitutional aversion to that caution allied to timidity and cowardice\nwhich prompts a man to look to his safety, comfort, and worldly repute\nas the first social law that concerns _him_. I admire rather the brave\nman who is ready to sacrifice all that, if he can, by so doing, gain the\ndesired right end.\n\nBut in the case before us, it is not so. Men talk as if all we had to do\nto convert a sinner from the error of his way was to give him a good\ntalking, forgetting that we have not a plastic material to work upon,\nbut a most stubborn and intractable one, wherever interest is concerned;\nand that a bold bad man is generally proof against talk, and yields to\nno power but the grace of God exercised directly, and seconded by His\nheavy judgments. Have we not all seen, with shame and astonishment, the\n\"wicked rich\" regularly in their places at church, much oftener than the\n\"wicked poor,\" who have less interest in playing the hypocrite? And\nhave we not felt our utter powerlessness, whether by public preaching or\nby private monition, to find a way to those case-hardened hearts? What\nare we to do with such a man as Tennyson describes in \"Sea Dreams,\" who\n\n          \"began to bloat himself, and ooze\n    All over with the fat affectionate smile\n    That makes the widow lean;\"\n\nwhen his victim--\n\n    \"Pursued him down the street, and far away,\n    Among the honest shoulders of the crowd,\n    Read rascal in the motions of his back,\n    And scoundrel in the supple-sliding knee.\"\n\nHere is all that we can do--told us in the last sweet lines:--\n\n    \"'She sleeps: let us too, let all evil, sleep.\n    He also sleeps--another sleep than ours.\n    He can do no more wrong: forgive him, dear,\n    And I shall sleep the sounder!'\n                                 Then the man,\n    'His deeds yet live, the worst is yet to come;\n    Yet let your sleep for this one night be sound:\n    I do forgive him.'\n                      'Thanks, my love,' she said,\n    'Your own will be the sweeter;' and they slept.\"\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER VI\n\n\nAs is the manner of our friend, he concludes a letter which was begun\nwith thoughtful wisdom, with a proposal which, if gravely made, will\nseem to most of us both unpractical and impracticable.\n\nVery forcible and very true is the emphatic declaration here made of the\ndeep, perhaps unpardonable sinfulness of taking in vain the holy name of\nGod.\n\nBut, to my mind, the irremediable fault in the latter proposition in\nthis letter is the assumption that every honest clergyman of average\ncapacity, and of ordinary experience of life, is, of course, wise enough\nto discern men's characters and to judge them with that unerring\nsagacity that will enable him to pronounce without favour or distinction\nof persons the severe sentence: \"You shall not enter this house of God.\nI interdict your presence here. The comforts and privileges of religion\nare for other than thou. I deny thee the prayers, the preaching, and the\nsacraments of the Church.\" More briefly--\"I excommunicate thee.\"\n\nEven in the case of a very bad man this would be found impossible to\naccomplish without the direst danger to the clergyman's usefulness and\ninfluence, to say nothing of his peace. For our experience abundantly\nshows that let a bad man but be audacious, and even ruffianly enough,\nhelped by his position, he will always find plenty of support among the\npowerful and influential. The poor and honest clergyman, if he has\nattempted to enforce Church discipline, will be gravely rebuked for his\nwant of charity, for his sad lack of discretion or tact, for his utter\nwant of worldly wisdom; he will very soon find, to use the familiar\nphrase, the place too hot for him, and he may be thankful if he escapes\nwith some small remainder of respect or compassion from the\nnobler-minded of his flock, who are always in a very small minority.\n\nI know not how it really was in the time when the rubrics of the\nCommunion Services were framed. One would think, judging from these,\nthat the clergyman possessed unlimited power to judge and punish with\nspiritual deprivation, and that he was alone to unite in himself all the\nvarious offices of accuser and police, counsel, jury, and judge. We are\nrequired to say every Ash Wednesday that we regret the loss of the godly\ndiscipline of the Primitive Church--under which, \"at the beginning of\nLent, all such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to\nopen penance; and that it is much to be wished that the said discipline\nmay be restored again.\" But few can seriously view a realization of that\nwish without fear for the certain consequences.\n\nThe truth is, the world moves on. Human nature may remain the same; but\nthe laws and usages of society are subject to changes which it is\nuseless to withstand. At the present day, great, rather too great,\nperhaps, are the claims of _charity_. We are told to hope for the best\nin the worst of cases; we are to forgive all, even the still hardened\nand unrepenting; we are to smile upon heresy and schism; we are to treat\nthe rude, the churlish, the hard of heart, amidst our flocks, as if we\nhad the greatest regard for them! I am not prepared to say that this is\nin every way to be regretted; for these are errors that lean perhaps to\nvirtue's side. But I certainly do think that often a little more\nfearlessness in rebuking vice would not come amiss.\n\nBut, on the other hand, suppose for a moment the clergy to have the\nundisputed power to bar out both the wicked rich and the wicked poor\nfrom their churches, this power would be of very little use; nay, it\nwould be full of mischief and danger, without a sound judgment, a\nfearless spirit, and a heart little used to the melting mood. The\nclergy, as a class, may perhaps be a trifle superior to the laity in\nmoral character, in spiritual knowledge, and in judgment in dealing with\npeople, because their profession has early trained (or at any rate,\nought to have trained) them in the constant and imperative exercise of\nself-examination and self-control, and the careful discernment of\ncharacter in their intercourse with men. But that superiority, if it\nexists at all, is so trifling as to make very little impression on the\nlaity, who would naturally be ready at any step to dispute the wisdom or\nexpediency of the judicial acts of the clergy.\n\nFurther, again: given both the wisdom to judge and the power to doom,\nwould it be desirable to establish a rule that the open and notorious\nsinner (though there would always be differences of opinion upon what he\nreally is, even among the clergy themselves) should be prevented from\ncoming where he might, above all other places, be most likely to hear\nwords that would touch his heart and bring him to a better mind? From\nthe pulpit, words of counsel, of holy doctrine, and of heart-stirring\nprecepts of the Gospel, fall with a power and weight which are rarely to\nbe found in private conversations. Many an open and notorious sinner has\nfirst yielded up his heart to God under the powerful influence of\npreaching. When Jesus sat in the Pharisee's house, all the publicans and\nsinners drew near to hear Him; and the orthodox sinners, the Pharisees,\nmade bitter complaints that He received and ate with the scorned and\nrejected sinners. God forbid that the day should ever come when\nspiritual pride and exclusiveness shall shut out even the hardest of\nsinners from the house of God; for who can tell where or when the word\nmay be spoken which shall break the stony heart, and replace it with the\ntender heart of flesh, soon to be filled with love and devotion to God\nthe Saviour and Redeemer?\n\nBut, as this is a subject of great importance, may I also say a word in\nsupport of Mr. Ruskin's own view that the wicked should be discouraged,\nor even forbidden, to enter the house of God? We have 2 Cor. vi. 14-18,\nwhich seems to point out that, in the primitive Church, the wicked were\nnot allowed in the assemblies of the faithful. And we remember David's\n\"I have hated the congregation of evil doers, and will not sit with the\nwicked\" (Psalm xxvi. 5). Is not Mr. Ruskin, perhaps, after all, only\nadvocating a return to primitive usage?\n\nMr. Ruskin says in the Preface to his selected works: \"What I wrote on\nreligion was painstaking, and I think forcible, as compared with most\nreligious writing; especially in its frankness and fearlessness.\"\nUnfortunately he adds, \"But it was wholly mistaken.\"[14] He is still\nequally outspoken, frank, and fearless; but what he wrote upon religion,\nas far as I know it, in the days which he now condemns, will live and do\ngood, as long as the noble English language, of which he is one of the\ngreatest masters, lives to convey to distant generations the great\nthoughts of the sons that are her proudest boast.\n\n     [14] \"Sesame and Lilies,\" p. iii., 1876.\n\n\n\n\n          ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON THE CENSURES OF THE CHURCH.\n\n                            BY THE EDITOR.\n\n\nSince writing my notes on Letter VI., in which Mr. Ruskin gives such\nvehement expression to his desire to see the ancient discipline of the\nChurch restored, I have in conversation with himself learned this to be\none of the objects he has most at heart in writing these letters; and I\nhave also read in the Life of Bishop Selwyn, by the Rev. H. W. Tucker\n(vol. i., p. 241) that admirable prelate's view of this disregarded\nquestion. I believe Selwyn to have been the greatest uninspired\nmissionary since the days of St. Paul (if indeed we can with truth\nconsider so great a man wholly uninspired). But the great Bishop of the\nSouth Seas, in the charge from which copious extracts are there given,\ndistinctly recommends the revival of spiritual discipline and the\ncensures of the Church upon unrepenting offenders. He refers for\nauthority to apostolic example and precept, and to the discipline\nrubrics of the Communion Service, and adds the undeniable fact that our\nAnglican communion is the only branch of the Christian Church where such\ndiscipline is wanting.\n\nI must ask leave to refer my readers to Mr. Tucker's book for the\ngrounds in detail of the Bishop's wishes. I am not aware that any\nEnglish prelate has ventured upon so hazardous an experiment; one, I\nshould rather say, so certain to fail disastrously. The infancy of the\nChristian Church, and the Divine guidance directly exercised, rendered\nsuch discipline in the first centuries both practicable and\neffective.[15] But I do not remember that any parish priest of the\nReformed Church has ever attempted to enforce the Communion rubrics,\nexcept, as we have learned from the public papers, in recent times, with\ndisastrous consequences to the promoters. And what kind of wickedness is\nto be so visited? To prove drunkenness, or impurity, or fraudulent\npractices, or false doctrine (Canon 109), a judicial inquiry must be\nresorted to. Rebukes for lesser offences would certainly lead to\ndisputes, if not even to recrimination! The irresistible circumstances\nof the age would entirely defeat any such endeavours. In towns,\nparochial limits are practically unknown or ignored, and families, or\nindividuals, attend whatever church or chapel they please, no one\npreventing them, thus making all exercise of sacerdotal authority\nimpracticable. In the country, even where only the parish church is\nwithin reach, it is highly probable that an offender would meet priestly\nexcommunication by the easy expedient of cutting himself off from\ncommunication with his clergyman and his church; and even if he did not,\nit would be a very new state of things if the sentence were received\nwith submission on the part of the offender, and acquiescence on that of\nthe congregation.\n\n     [15] As these sheets are passing through the press, I happen to\n     meet with these words of Bishop Wilberforce:--\"The more I have\n     thought over the matter, the more it seems to me that it was\n     providentially intended that discipline, in the strictest sense of\n     that word, should be the restraint of the early Church, and that it\n     should gradually die out as the Church approached maturity, or\n     rather turn from a formal and external rule to an inner work in the\n     spirit--should run into the opening of God's Word and its\n     application to the individual soul and life.\"--_Life_, vol. i., p.\n     230.\n\nIn short, the thing is simply impossible; and I do not find that even\nBishop Selwyn himself visited immorality with ecclesiastical censures,\nor supported his clergy in doing so; and I am using the word\n\"immorality\" in its full and proper sense, and not with that restricted\nmeaning which confines it to a particular sin. It is true, as he says,\nthat our Church stands alone in refraining from the exercise of such\npower. But in other religious bodies, the discretionary power to use\nsuch dangerous weapons is not left to individuals however gifted. It\nrests in a constituted body, on whom the whole responsibility would lie.\nBut the isolation of the English clergyman in his church and parish\nforbids him thus to risk his whole usefulness and his social existence.\nWho would confirm him in his judgment? Who would stand by him in the\ntroubles which he would assuredly entail upon himself? Would his\nchurchwardens, his rural dean, his archdeacon, or his bishop? I think\nthere would be little comfort to be found in any of these quarters.\n\n\n\n\n                            ON LETTER VII\n\n\nExcellent as is Canon Gray's letter (p. 169), I do not at all concur in\nhis somewhat severe censure on the second paragraph in this letter, in\nwhich Mr. Ruskin, as I conceive, with complete theological accuracy,\npoints out how in His human nature our Lord accepted and received some,\nperhaps many, of the deficiencies of our nature, human frailty and\nweakness, even human _liability_ to sin, without, however, once yielding\nto its temptations. I have everywhere in my \"Life of Christ\" endeavoured\nto give reasons for my faith in this view, which, even if held, I know\nis not often professed.\n\nIf Christ had been perfectly insensible to the allurements of sin, where\nwould be His fellow-feeling with us? It would be a mere outward\nsemblance; nor would there then be any significance in the statement\nthat \"He was in all points tempted like as we are,\" if He had been able\nto view with calm indifference the inducements presented to Him from\ntime to time to abandon His self-sacrificing work and consult His\nsafety. The captain is not to go securely armour-plated into the fight\nwhile the private soldier marches in his usual unprotected apparel. Nor\nwill the Captain of our salvation protect Himself against the dangers\nwhich He invites us to encounter. If He knew nothing of sin from\nexperience of its power, how could He be an example to us? Therefore I\nbelieve Mr. Ruskin to be perfectly right in affirming that in the words\nof Jesus we listen not to one speaking entirely in the Power and Wisdom\nof God, but to the Son of Man, bowed down, but not conquered, by\nafflictions, firm and unbending in His great purpose to bear in His own\nbody the sin of the world--Son of Man, yet God Incarnate.\n\nNor does it seem to me \"a hard way of speaking\" when Mr. Ruskin rightly\nand plainly affirms the perfect humanity of Christ, which, however,\nCanon Gray correctly points out to be assumed and borne in accordance\nwith His own will as perfect God. I am afraid that, good and kind as he\nis, it is Canon Gray himself who is a little hard in unconsciously\nimputing thoughts which had no existence in the writer's mind!\n\nI cannot help being amused at the gravity with which certain critics\nshake their heads ominously over the last paragraph in this letter, and\nseriously ask, What can Mr. Ruskin mean by the \"peace and joy in the\nHoly Ghost\" enjoyed by the birds? The Poet Laureate would hardly care to\nbe brought to book for each poetical flight with which he charms his\nmany appreciative readers, and to be asked to explain exactly what he\nmeans by each of those noble thoughts which are only revealed from soul\nto soul, and dissolve into fluid, like the beautiful brittle-star of our\ncoasts, under the touch of a too curious hand.\n\nHow do we know but that the animal existence of these charming\ncompanions of our quiet hours is not accompanied by a spiritual\nexistence too, as much inferior to our own spiritual state as their\ncorporeal to ours? And therefore shall we boldly dare to say that they\nperish altogether and for ever? We may neither believe nor disbelieve in\nmatters kept so completely secret from us. But we must be pardoned for\nleaning to a belief that the feathered creatures which spend most of\ntheir brief life in singing loud praises to the loving Creator and Giver\nof all good, do not live quite for nothing beyond the dissolution of\ntheir little frames. There are no means of ascertaining this by\nscientific experiments, or even by the most ingenious processes of\ninduction carefully recorded and duly referred to as occasion may arise.\nBut certainly it is a harmless fancy which many have indulged in before\nMr. Ruskin, without being charged with such unsoundness in doctrine as\ndenying the Personality of the Holy Ghost! By-and-by it may be found\nthat what men have believed in half in sport will be realized wholly in\nearnest. Just outside the churchyard wall of Ecclesfield may be seen (at\nleast I saw it a few years ago) a little monumental stone to a favourite\ndog, with the text, \"Thou, Lord, preservest man and beast.\" And in\nKingsley's \"Prose Idylls\" I have just met most _apropos_ with the\nfollowing beautiful passage, which many will read with pleasure, perhaps\nsome with profit:--\n\n     \"If anyone shall hint to us that we and the birds may have sprung\n     originally from the same type; that the difference between our\n     intellect and theirs is one of degree, and not of kind, we may\n     believe or doubt: but in either case we shall not be greatly moved.\n     'So much the better for the birds,' we will say, 'and none the\n     worse for us. You raise the birds towards us: but you do not lower\n     us towards them.' What we are, we are by the grace of God. Our own\n     powers and the burden of them we know full well. It does not lessen\n     their dignity or their beauty in our eyes to hear that the birds of\n     the air partake, even a little, of the same gifts of God as we. Of\n     old said St. Guthlac in Crowland, as the swallows sat upon his\n     knee, 'He who leads his life according to the will of God, to him\n     the wild deer and the wild birds draw more near;' and this new\n     theory of yours may prove St. Guthlac right. St. Francis, too--he\n     called the birds his brothers. Whether he was correct, either\n     theologically or zoologically, he was plainly free from that fear\n     of being mistaken for an ape, which haunts so many in these modern\n     times. Perfectly sure that he himself was a spiritual being, he\n     thought it at least possible that birds might be spiritual beings\n     likewise, incarnate like himself in mortal flesh; and saw no\n     degradation to the dignity of human nature in claiming kindred\n     lovingly with creatures so beautiful, so wonderful, who (as he\n     fancied in his old-fashioned way) praised God in the forest, even\n     as angels did in heaven. In a word, the saint, though he was an\n     ascetic, and certainly no man of science, was yet a poet, and\n     somewhat of a philosopher; and would possibly--so do extremes\n     meet--have hailed as orthodox, while we hail as truly scientific,\n     Wordsworth's great saying--\n\n                         'Therefore am I still\n          A lover of the meadows and the woods\n          And mountains; and of all that we behold\n          From this green earth; of all the mighty world\n          Of eye and ear--both what they half create,\n          And what perceive; well pleased to recognize\n          In Nature and the language of the sense,\n          The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,\n          The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul\n          Of all my moral being.'\"\n\n                                       _Charm of Birds._\n\n\n\n\n                            ON LETTER VIII\n\n\nWhat generous and enlightened spirit will not be stirred to its\ninnermost depths by these words, burning as they are with a\nwell-grounded indignation?\n\nI dare say some of the clergy will have a word to say on their claim to\nthe priesthood as implying a sacrificial and mediatorial character. On\nthis point I will say nothing at present.\n\nBut it is an awfully solemn consideration put before us here, whether\ninstead of the pure blessings and the bright countenances intended to\nbe ours, our accursed blessings and defiled faces are not the natural\nconsequences of our wilful misunderstanding of what the will of the Lord\nis.\n\n\"Thy will be done\" is a petition which can be offered up in two quite\ndistinct senses. In the one, it is an expression of resignation to the\nFather's afflictive dispensations; in the other, the heartfelt desire to\nwork out the revealed will of God in all the many-sided aspects of life.\nIn the first sense, when sorrow or death has entered our door, our first\nimpulse, if we are Christians, is to give evidence of, and expression\nto, our resignation by recognizing the _will of God_. Hence Mr. Ruskin\ninterposes: \"Are you so sure that it _was_ the will of God that your\nchild should die, or that you should have got into that trouble?\" I look\nin my local paper in the column of deaths, and see in a neighbouring\nlarge town how extraordinary a proportion of deaths are those of\nchildren. I have taken occasional cemetery duty in one of the busiest\ncentres of industry in Yorkshire, and was shocked at the large numbers\nof funerals in white. Am I to believe it was the _will of God_ that so\nmany young children should perish, especially as I look to my own\nbeautiful parish, with its sweet sea and mountain breezes mingled, where\nthe deaths of children are comparatively rare? and am I not forced to\nbelieve that, even without the assistance of destitution--neglect and\novercrowding, and \"quieting mixtures\" and ardent spirits, and kicks and\nblows have filled most of those little graves? I fear that the will of\nSatan is here being accomplished vastly to his satisfaction. And seldom\ndoes the Government do more than touch the fringe of these monstrous\nevils. Of course they say \"We cannot interfere,\" or \"Legislation in\nthese matters is impracticable.\" But can we not all remember when it was\njust as certain that free trade in food was impracticable? but who does\nnot see that it is saving us from famine this dark year 1879?--that\ncompulsory education was revolutionary and full of unimaginable perils\nto the country, and yet who are so glad as the poor themselves, now that\nit has been carried into effect? It used to be thought that if people\nchose to kill themselves with unwholesome open drains before their\ndoors, there was no power able to prevent them. But we are wiser now.\nLegislators have generally been, or chosen to appear, like cowards till\nthe time for action came, very late, and then they were decided enough.\nNow let us hope that a way may be found to save infant life from\npremature extinction by wholesale.\n\nLet me use this opportunity of saying that in the letters we are now\nconsidering there is a feature which ought not to escape those who are\ndesirous of deriving good from them; and that is that in their very\ncondensed form no time is taken for explanation or expansion. Mr. Ruskin\nspeaks as unto wise men, and asks us to judge for ourselves what he\nsays. But my own experience, after frequent perusal of them, shows me\nthat there is a vast fund of truth in them which becomes apparent only\nafter patient consideration and reflection. Without desiring at all to\nbestow extravagant praise on my kind friend, or any other distinguished\nman, it is only fair and just to own that the truth that is in these\nletters shines out more and more the more closely they are examined. It\nis a gift that God has given him, which has cost him far more pain,\nworry, and vexation, through all kinds of wilful and envious, as well as\ninnocent and unconscious misrepresentation, than ever it has gained him\nof credit or renown.\n\nThis principle leads me to view _now_ with approbation what I could not\nread at first without an unpleasant feeling. The sentence: \"Nearly the\nwhole Missionary body (with the hottest Evangelical section of the\nEnglish Church) is at this moment composed of men who think the Gospel\nthey are to carry to mend the world with, forsooth, is this, 'If any man\nsin, he hath an Advocate with the Father.'\" And when I first read it to\nmy reverend brethren, hard words were spoken of this passage, because in\nits terseness, in its elliptic form, it easily allows itself to be\nmisunderstood. Yet the paragraph contains the essence of the Gospel\nexpressed with a faithful boldness not often met with in pulpit\naddresses.\n\n\"If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father.\" We have here a\nsolemn and momentous truth, expressed in few words, as clearly and as\nbriefly as any geometrical definition. But is this _all_ the Gospel?\nWill this alone \"mend the world, forsooth\"? Now the extreme men of one\nparticular school in the English Church do really preach little else\nbeside this. When they are entreated to preach upon good works, too, and\nunfold a little of their value and beauty,--if they have any at\nall,--the answer is always to the effect, \"Oh, of course; faith in\nChrist must of necessity beget the love of good works. These are the\nsigns of that. Preach Christ crucified, and all the rest will be sure to\nfollow.\" And this is what is exclusively called \"preaching the Gospel.\"\nThe preacher who teaches us to love our enemies, to live pure lives, to\nbe honourable to all men and women, to bring up our families in the\ntruth, is frowned upon as a \"legal preacher.\" As a clergyman myself, I\nam not afraid of saying that I look upon this so-called Gospel-preaching\nas fraught with not a little of danger. God knows, wicked sinners are\nfound in every congregation and class of men, kneeling to pray, and\nsinging praises, exactly like good men. Now I can hardly conceive a\nstyle and matter of preaching more calculated to excuse and palliate,\nand almost encourage sin, than this narrow and exclusive so-called\nGospel-preaching. Neither Christ nor His apostles taught thus at all.\nThe whole Sermon on the Mount is moral in the highest and purest sense.\nEvery epistle has its moral or _legal_ side. \"Woe is me if I preach not\nthe Gospel!\" and I cannot be preaching the Gospel unless, along with the\ngreat proclamation, \"If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the\nFather,\" I also do my utmost to teach \"what the will of the Lord is\"\nconcerning a pure, holy, and blameless life, full of active, good works,\ndone in deep humility and self-abasement; because Christ loved me and\ndied for me, and asks me, in love to Him, to walk in His steps.\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER IX\n\n\nI fancy I can still hear the murmur of angry dissent pass round as I\nread to my reverend brethren this indignant plea for a higher\ninterpretation of the petition for daily bread than that which passes\ncurrent with the unthinking, self-indulgent world. Nevertheless, this\nmanifestation of feeling was not general, and I thoroughly agree with\nMr. Ruskin that the world has, from the first, used this prayer\nthoughtlessly and blasphemously; and probably will continue to do so to\nthe end, when the thoughts and imaginations of all men's hearts shall be\nrevealed, and no more disguises shall be possible; when the masked\nhypocrite's smile shall be torn from him and reveal the covetousness\nthat breeds in his heart to its core; when the honourable man shall no\nlonger be confounded with thieves, nor the usurer and extortioner be\ncourted and bowed to like an honest man.\n\nThe veil that hid the true Christ, as Mr. Ruskin has well remarked, was\nremoved in the breaking of bread with the disciples at Emmaus. As the\nMaster, so the true disciples. They too may be known both by the\nspiritual breaking of the Bread of Life in the Holy Communion (though\nthe canting hypocrite too may be found polluting that holy rite); but\nmore especially in the union of the sacred ordinance with obedience to\nthe scarcely less sacred command of Christian love and charity to the\npoor. There may be the empty profession, but there will be none of the\nreality of the religion of the Gospel, unless we are partakers of the\nbread broken at the Lord's Table, or unless we eat the bread earned by\nthe honest labour of our hands or of our brains, or share some of our\nbread with those, the Lord's brethren, whom He has left for us to care\nfor in His name. The absence of either of these three essential\nconditions just lays us open to the charge of flaunting before the world\na false and spurious Christianity. In the plain words of our friend, our\nbread not being fairly got or fairly used, is stolen bread.\n\nBut I would willingly believe that it is only by a strong figure of\nspeech that we clergy are here again emphatically called upon to act the\npart of inquisitors by pointedly demanding of every member of our flock\na precise account of the manner in which he earns his livelihood. Still,\nif the answer was not a surprised and indignant stare, I believe the\ngreat mass of men would probably be able to give an answer which should\nabundantly satisfy themselves and us, until Mr. Ruskin threw his own\nlight upon the answer and demonstrated that the notions of modern\ncivilized society are not in accordance with the highest teaching.\nAccording to our ideas, the artisan, the tradesman, the merchant, the\nmembers of the learned and the military and naval professions, all those\nengaged in the various departments of government work, from the cabinet\nminister down to the last office clerk,--all these use the labour of\nbody or of mind, and in return receive the necessaries or the luxuries\nof life for themselves and their households. Men who are, if they\nplease, exempt altogether from such labour, as large landed proprietors,\nare certainly under a temptation to lead a life of ease and leisure. But\nit is very seldom that we are offended with the sight of a landlord so\nunmindful of social duties as to take no personal active interest in the\nwelfare and conduct of his tenants, or forgetful of the responsibilities\nto his country imposed upon him by his rank and position.\n\nIt is to be hoped that Mr. Ruskin does not in all solemn seriousness\nreally expect that after a fair examination of the modes of life of all\nthese people, \"an entirely new view of life and its sacraments will\nopen upon us and them.\" Is it indeed a fact that \"the great mass of men\ncalling themselves Christians do actually live by robbing the poor of\ntheir bread, and by no other trade whatsoever\"? Mr. Ruskin is always\nterribly in earnest in whatever he says, and we must look for an\nexplanation of this sentence in the very decided views he holds upon\ninterest of money, which he calls usury.\n\nMr. Ruskin classes Usury and Interest together. Here are some of his\nstrong words upon this subject: \"There is absolutely no debate possible\nas to what usury is, any more than what adultery is. The Church has only\nbeen polluted by indulgence in it since the 16th century. Usury is any\nkind whatever of interest on loan, and it is the essential modern force\nof Satan.\" This was written September 9th of this year. In \"Fors\nClavigera,\" Letter lxxxii., p. 323, he challenged the Bishop of\nManchester to answer him the question, whether he considered \"usury to\nbe a work of the Lord\"?[16] In the same letter, to place his heavy\ndenunciation against the wickedness of usury in the best possible\ncompany, he pleads: \"Plato's scheme was impossible even in his own\nday,--as Bacon's New Atlantis in _his_ day,--as Calvin's reform in _his_\nday,--as Goethe's Academe in his; but of the good there was in all these\nmen, the world gathered what it could find of evil.\"\n\n     [16] See _Contemporary Review_, February 1880.\n\nLet us look a little closer into this matter. It is not because a man\nwith fearless frankness breasts the full torrent of popular persuasion\nand universal practice that he is to be thrust aside as a fanatic, with\nhard words and unfeeling sneers concerning his sanity. Here, again, I\navow my persuasion that Mr. Ruskin is, in one sense, too far in advance,\nand, in another, too far in the rear of the time; and while I attempt an\nexplanatory justification of the modern practice, I admit that it is\nonly \"for the hardness of our hearts\" and because the golden age is\nstill far off.\n\nThe Mosaic law was severe against usury and increase, forbidding it\nunder heavy threatenings among the faithful Israelites, but allowing it\nin lending to strangers. \"If thy brother be waxen poor, then thou shalt\nrelieve him ... take thou no usury of him, or increase\" (Lev. xxv. 35,\n36). \"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money,\nusury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury. _Unto a\nstranger_ thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt\nnot lend upon usury\" (Deut. xxiii. 19, 20). \"Lord, who shall abide in\nThy tabernacle? ... He that putteth not out his money to usury\" (Psalm\nxv. 1, 5. See Ezek. xviii. 7, etc.) And to come to the Christian law, we\nhave the mild general principle: \"If ye lend to them of whom ye hope to\nreceive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to\nreceive as much again.... Lend, hoping for nothing again, and your\nreward shall be great\" (Luke vi. 34, 35).\n\nSo far the Law of Moses and the Gospel.\n\nBut our Lord, in the Parable of the Talents, appears to actually\nsanction the practice of loans upon interest: \"Thou oughtest, therefore,\nto have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should\nhave received mine own with usury\" (Matt. xxv. 27). The preceding verse,\nthe 26th, may well be understood to be a question--Didst thou indeed\nthink so? It does not even indirectly attribute hardness and oppression\nto our Lord.[17] I am quite aware that it may be replied that this is an\ninstance of those strong audacious metaphors, where the fact used by way\nof illustration is instinctively overleaped by the mind of the hearer to\narrive at the lesson which it marks and emphasizes; as when the Lord is\nrepresented as an unjust judge, or Paul speaks of grafting the wild\nolive branch upon the good, or James refers to the rust and canker upon\ngold and silver, or Milton speaks of certain bishops as \"blind\nmouths.\"[18] But in all these cases, the hyperbole is manifest; it is an\nuntruth or a disguise, which not only does not deceive, but teaches a\ngreat truth. Our Lord's reference to money-lenders or exchangers appears\nto lend an indirect sanction to a familiar practice.\n\n     [17] The owners of five talents and of two talents are commended\n     for making cent. per cent. of their money; but the man who hid away\n     his one talent, as French peasants do, and brought it to his Lord\n     untouched and undiminished, received a severe rebuke.\n\n     [18] Lycidas. See \"Sesame and Lilies,\" p. 27.\n\nThe Law of Moses, therefore, rebuking the practice of lending for\nincrease among brethren and encouraging it in dealing with strangers,\ncombined with the well-known avarice of the Jews to make them\nmoney-lenders on a large scale, and at high rates of interest, to the\nprodigals and spendthrifts, the bankrupt barons and needy sovereigns of\nthe middle ages. Money was rarely lent for commercial purposes, and to\nadvance the real prosperity of the borrower. It was generally to stave\noff want for the time; and principal and interest, when pay-day came,\nhad generally to be found in the pastures or strongholds of the enemy.\nHigh interest was charged, on account of the extraordinary\nprecariousness of what was called the security. Grinding and grasping\nundoubtedly the money-lenders would be, from the hardship of their case.\nReckless extravagance and lavish profusion were, in those non-commercial\nages, highly applauded. The spendthrift and the prodigal was the\nfavourite of the multitude; the rich money-lender was hated and abused,\nwhile his money-bags were sought after with all the eagerness of\nhard-driving poverty. They reviled the careful and economical Israelite;\nthey looked with horror upon his vast accumulations of capital, and\nnever remembered to thank him for the safety they owed to him from the\nviolent hands of their own soldiers and retainers.\n\nAll this went on until the sixteenth or seventeenth century. I have\nbefore me a very curious old book, lent to me by Mr. Ruskin, entitled,\n\"The English Usurer: or, Usury Condemned by the most learned and famous\nDivines of the Church of England. Collected by John Blaxton, Preacher of\nGod's Word at Osmington, in Dorsetshire, 1634.\"\n\nThe language throughout the book is of extreme violence against all\nmanner of usury. The compiler gives a collection of the most emphatic\ntestimonies of the greatest preachers of the day against this\n\"detestable vice.\" Bishop Jewell calls it \"a most filthy trade, a trade\nwhich God detesteth, a trade which is the very overthrow of all\nChristian love.\" There is, it must be admitted, no sort of argument\nattempted in the long extract from Bishop Jewell's sermon to demonstrate\nthe wickedness of the practice against which he launches his fierce\ninvectives, but he certainly brings his sermon to a conclusion with a\nthreat of extreme measures \"if they continue therein. I will open their\nshame and denounce excommunication against them, and publish their names\nin this place before you all, that you may know them, and abhor them as\nthe plagues and monsters of this world; that if they be past all fear of\nGod, they may yet repent and amend for worldly shame.\"\n\nThis was Bishop Jewell preaching in the middle of the 16th century; and\nsuch were the strong terms very generally employed by good and\nthoughtful men at that day. Bacon (Essay 41) says that one of the\nobjections against usury is that \"it is against nature for money to\nbeget money!\" Antonio, in \"The Merchant of Venice,\" asks:\n\n                 \"When did friendship take\n    A _breed_ of barren metal of his friend?\"\n\nAnd his practice was \"neither to lend nor borrow by taking nor giving of\nexcess,\" which brought upon him the malice and vindictiveness of the\nJew--\n\n                \"that in low simplicity\n    He lends out money gratis, and brings down\n    The rate of usance here with us in Venice.\"\n\nPhilip, in Tennyson's \"Brook \"--a simple man in later times--\n\n    \"Could not understand how money breeds,\n    Thought it a dead thing.\"\n\nBut there were men, too, who saw that the taking of moderate interest\nwas a blameless act. Calvin was a contemporary of Bishop Jewell, and his\nmind exhibits a curious mixture of feelings upon the subject. Blaxton\ntriumphantly places a sentence from Calvin's \"Epistola de Usura\" as a\nbattle-flag in his title-page:--\n\n\"In republica bene constituta nemo faenerator tolerabilis est; sed omnino\ndebet e consortio hominum rejici.\" \"An usurer is not tolerable in a\nwell-established Commonwealth, but utterly to be rejected out of the\ncompany of men.\" So again, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy. But again,\nin a passage quoted from the same author, without reference, in Dugald\nStewart's Preliminary Dissertation (Encyd. Brit.) we come across a\ndifferent view.\n\n\"'Money begets not money!'--What does the sea beget? What the house for\nwhich I receive rent? Is silver brought forth from the walls and the\nroof? But that is produced from land, and that is drawn forth from the\nsea, which shall produce money; and the convenience of a house is paid\nfor with a stipulated sum. Now if better profit can be derived from the\nletting out of money than by the letting of an estate, shall a profit be\nmade by letting perhaps some barren land to a farmer, and shall it not\nbe allowed to him who lends a sum of money? He who gets an estate by\npurchase, shall he not from that money derive an annual profit? Whence\nthen is the merchant's profit? You will say, from his diligence and\nindustry. Does anyone suppose that money ought to lie idle and\nunprofitable? He who borrows of me is not going to let the loan lie\nidle. He is not going to draw profit from the money itself, but from the\ngoods bought with it. Those reasonings, therefore, against usury are\nsubtle, and have a certain plausibility; but they fall as soon as they\nare examined more narrowly. I therefore conclude that we are to judge of\nusury, not from any particular passage of Scripture, but by the ordinary\nrules of justice and equity.\"\n\nTo come at once to modern days and practical views. Let us suppose\nlending on interest forbidden by the Church and the law. Then sums of\nmoney required for good and legitimate business purposes must be begged\nas a great favour. No honourable man would do this. The instinctive\nrepugnance felt by an independent man to place himself under pecuniary\nobligations which he could not reciprocate would stop many a promising\nyoung man of slender means from going to college, many a good man of\nbusiness from using the most favourable opportunities. I am not speaking\nof borrowing money to gain temporary relief from pecuniary\nembarrassment, but of money honourably desired to realize advantages of\napparent life-value. So the necessitous would be doomed to remain in\nhopeless necessity until some benevolently-minded person with a mass of\nloose unemployed capital came to his rescue, and such men are not to be\nmet with every day.\n\nSo far for the man who would like to borrow, but that the law will not\nallow it except as a free loan or gift. Then for the willing lender, if\nhe dared. He has, say, a few thousands in hand, which he does not wish\nto spend. He looks round, if he is anxious to use it for good, for an\nobject of his charity who seems least likely to disappoint him. Does our\nexperience of human nature teach that a sense of gratitude for benefits\nreceived is a good security for honourable conduct? Alas! in a multitude\nof cases--I fear the majority--the lender would only be met with cold\nand alienated looks when he expected to receive his own again, if indeed\nhe found anywhere at all the object of his kindness. The memory of past\ningratitude, the fear of worse to come, would dry the sources of\nbenevolence, and make the upright and honest to suffer equally with the\nswindler and the hypocrite.\n\nBut there is no such fear now. The recognized system of lending upon\napproved security for a fair and moderate rate of interest removes the\nirksome, galling sense of obligation, and enables any man to borrow with\na feeling that if he receives an obligation he is also conferring one;\nthat if he makes ten per cent. by trading, or a good stipend by his\ndegree, he will divide his profits fairly with the man who served him,\nand that he is helping him in his turn to keep his money together for\nthe sake of his children after him. Take away these benefits, and what\ngood is done by free lending? Not any that we can see with ordinary\neyes, but a good deal of suspicion, disappointment, ingratitude, and\nloss.\n\nAn honourable man would a hundred times rather accept a loan as a matter\nof profit to the lender than as a charity to himself. The right result\nof an honourable system of borrowing and lending with equal advantage to\nboth, _is_ the will of God, and not contrary to sanctification. The\nresult of a compulsory system of charitable loans would lead only to the\ndestruction of credit and mutual confidence, and the sacrifice of a\nmultitude of Christian graces and virtues.\n\nWe cannot help observing with what vehemence Mr. Ruskin constantly\nthrusts the thief, the adulterer, and the usurer all into the same boat\nto be tossed against the breakers of his wrath. Now I would ask some one\nof those numerous disciples of his, whose affection almost prompts them\nto say to him, \"I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest,\" \"Pray, my\ngood friend, what is your own practice? Providence has blessed you with\nease and affluence far more than you need for daily bread. What do you\ndo with your money? Of course you would never think of investing in\nconsols, in railway shares, or dock-bonds, would you? you would not lend\nmoney upon mortgage, or exact rent for your household and landed\nproperty? I see that you hesitate a little; you have something to\nconfess. Come! what is it?\" And my amiable friend replies, \"Oh, but you\nsee all the world is gone after interest of money; all our mutual\nrelations are so intimately bound up with that accursed, abominable\npractice, that I have no alternative. _I have_ large sums lodged in\nvarious safe investments, and employ an agent to collect my rents and\nsettle with my tenants.\" And so I am forced to exclaim, \"What! you who\nare persuaded that usury, and theft, and adultery, are all of equal\nblackness, if you find that one sin is unavoidable, what about the other\ntwo? Would you then invite the robber and the licentious to sin with\nimpunity, as you practise your own convenient iniquity, with the\napplause of the world and your own acquiescence?\"\n\nPositively I see no escape from this argument. It is the _argumentum ad\nhominem_,--generally an uncivil mode of address; but here, at any rate,\nit is impersonally used.\n\nThese are my views frankly stated. If I am wrong, even by the highest\nstandard of Christian ethics, I shall be thankful for Mr. Ruskin's\ncorrections.\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER X\n\n\nThe letters which I have received up to the present time (October 31st)\nin reply to Mr. Ruskin's have not failed to bring me not a little of\ndisappointment. On the one hand, I see a man noble and elevated in his\naims, and with highest aspirations, desiring nothing so fervently as to\nsee the world and its pastors and teachers rising to the highest\nattainable level of religious and moral excellence; fearlessly rebuking\nthe evils he sees so clearly; clothing thoughts that consume him in\nwords that stir our inmost hearts; and yet I see him unavoidably missing\nhis aim as all men are liable to do, through the defect of possessing\nhuman language alone as the channel to convey divine meanings; and,\nmoreover, who cannot at every turn stay the course of their reasoning to\nexplain that that which they speak apparently, and from the necessities\nof language, to _all_, is, as the most ordinary apprehension would\nperceive, really addressed to _some_.\n\nOn the other side, while I hear many expressing their thankfulness that\nthings are now being said that \"wanted saying,\" and are being spoken out\nwith uncompromising boldness, others receive them with impatience, with\nirritation, with exasperation. I have been gravely advised to recommend\nMr. Ruskin to withdraw these letters, to wash my hands of them, etc.\nSometimes this arises from unfamiliarity with Mr. Ruskin's most famous\nworks; sometimes from entire unacquaintance with their number and their\nnature; as when a friend wrote to me before he saw or heard a word of\nthe letters:--\n\n\"If Mr. Ruskin thinks we have generally read his _publication_ (_sic_)\nI think he is mistaken; all I know of _it_ is that I have occasionally\nseen _it_ quoted in newspapers, from which I gather that he holds\npeculiar opinions.\"\n\nA lady, who looked well to the ways of her household, but knew very\nlittle of books, once asked me if Mr. Ruskin had not written a book\ncalled the \"Old Red Sandstone.\" I hinted that probably she meant the\n\"Stones of Venice,\" which was indeed the case. She knew it was something\nabout stones! But she was an excellent creature nevertheless!\n\nThese two traits may fairly be paired together.\n\nIt should be observed, by clergymen especially who read these letters\nattentively, that they contain just what we clergy ought to be told\nsometimes by laymen, to whom we preach with perfect impunity, but who as\na rule rarely make reply. I have just read Lord Carnarvon's excellent\naddress on Preaching, delivered at the Winchester Diocesan Conference,\nand thank him as I thank, and for the same reason that I thank, Mr.\nRuskin. We need to be told wholesome though unpalatable truths\nsometimes, when we have descended from our castle-pulpits to meet, it\nmay be, the eyes, and hear the voices, of impatient, irritated, and\nprejudiced critics.\n\nI do not remember that so bold an attack, and yet so friendly, has ever\nbefore been made upon our weak points in modern times; and I may justly\nclaim for Mr. Ruskin's letters a calm, self-searching, and, if need be,\na self-condemning and self-sacrificing, examination. We are all too apt\nto cry \"Peace, peace, where there is no peace.\" Why should the shepherds\nof Britain claim for themselves a more indulgent regard than the\nshepherds of Israel, whom Ezekiel, by the word of the Lord, addressed in\nthe 33rd and 34th chapters of his prophecy?\n\nConcerning the letter before us on the forgiveness of sins--each other's\nsins or debts, and our sins before God--it is not a question of\ntheology, but of simple moral right and wrong; and I defy Mr. Ruskin's\nbitterest censors to deny, that, in this wicked world, men are more in\nearnest in deceiving, injuring, and swindling their friends than they\nare in seeking the love of their enemies. Has not our Lord told us long\nago that \"the children of this world are wiser\" (that is, more earnest,\nconsistent, and thorough-going) \"in their generation than the children\nof light\"?\n\nIt is of extreme difficulty to _understand_ the clause, says Mr. Ruskin.\nReplies some slow-witted preacher: \"Where is the difficulty? I both\nunderstand it and explain it with perfect ease!\" What! understand the\nprecious conditions on which forgiveness will be extended to us! The\nquestion of God's forgiveness is not a _simple_ question. It is\ncomplicated by its relation to men's mutual forgiveness of each other,\nand that again by the practical difficulty of knowing when we can, and\nwhen, from the very nature of the case, we cannot, forgive. Here are\nsurely elements of difficulty quite sufficient to justify the remark\nthat \"the clause is one of such difficulty that, to understand it, means\nalmost to know the love of God which passeth knowledge.\"\n\nBut we may, at any rate, guard our people against _misunderstanding_ it;\nand they are guilty, and full of guilt, who live in sin,--sins of\navarice, of ill temper, of calumny, of hatred, of sensuality, and of\nunforgivingness, and yet daily ask to be forgiven, because, forsooth,\nthey are innocent of any bad intention!\n\nNo man or woman who sins with the knowledge that it _is_ sin can have\nGod's forgiveness. It is no use to plead the frailty of the flesh. It is\nwilful, knowing, deliberate sin; and it will not be forgiven without a\nvery living, earnest, and working faith indeed.\n\nI question much whether we preachers of the Gospel say enough upon this\npoint,--not at all that we underrate its importance, nor that we\noverrate the importance of that which we are apt to call Gospel\npreaching [Greek: kat' exochen], namely, the doctrine of the atonement\nby the Blood of Christ, which is the brightness and glory of the Gospel\nmessage, but is no more all of it than that the sum of the Lord's Prayer\nis contained in one of its clauses.\n\n\"As we forgive them that trespass against us.\" Shall I be pardoned for\nventuring here upon a remark which seems needful to make in the presence\nof so much that appears to be erroneous on the subject of human\nforgiveness? And it is more especially necessary to be understood in\nthe case of the clergy, because such large demands are made upon their\nforgiveness as it is impossible to satisfy. I do not at all say that\nthere are trespasses which men cannot forgive,--sins, I mean, of the\nordinary type, and not crimes. But I do say that there are times and\ncircumstances under which forgiveness is a moral impossibility. And yet\nthe world expects a clergyman to be ever walking up and down in society\nwith forgiveness on his lips and forgiveness in both his hands. Our Lord\nsaid, \"If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and _if he\nrepent_, forgive him\" (Luke xvii. 3); and forgiveness is to follow each\nsuccessive profession of repentance. And in Matt. xviii. 22, though\nrepentance is not named, it is manifestly implied. In 2 Cor. ii. 7,\nagain, sorrow for the sin is a condition of forgiveness. This, then, is\nthe rule and condition of forgiveness, that our brother _repent_; and\nmanifestly it must be so; for the act of forgiveness requires a\ncorrelative disposition to seek and receive forgiveness, just as a gift\nimplies not only a giver but a receiver, or it cannot be a gift, do what\nwe will. I think this is extremely apt to be overlooked even by the\nlarger, that is, the more emotional and impulsive part of the world,\nthough not, of course, by the more thoughtful; and clergymen especially\nare asked to speak fair, and sue for peace, and all but ask for\nforgiveness of those who are habitually and obstinately bent upon doing\nthem all the wrong and injury in their power, and using them with the\nmost intolerable harshness.\n\nWhat, then, does true religion require of us if such circumstances make\nforgiveness impossible? To be ever ready, ever prepared to forgive; to\nseek every opening, every avenue to peace without sacrifice of\nself-respect and manly independence; to watch for opportunities to do\nkindnesses to the most inveterate enemy,--even where a change of heart\nappears hopeless. This is possible to a Christian, and this is what\nChrist demands. But He does not demand impossibilities. He does not ask\nus to do more than our Heavenly Father Himself, who forgives the\nreturning sinner even \"a great way off,\" if his face be but homeward;\nbut says nothing of forgiveness to him whose back is towards his home,\nand whose heart dwells far away.\n\nI am sure Mr. Ruskin does not mean that no clergyman is sensible of the\nguilt of sins of omission. But he is speaking as a layman, who has heard\nin his time a great many preachers, and it is very probable indeed that\nhe has not heard many dwell long and forcibly on the fact, which is\nindeed a fact, that the guilt of sins of omission is the burden of\nChrist's teaching, and that more parables and more preaching are\ndirected against the sin of doing nothing at all than against the\npositive and active wickedness of bad men. If we will be candid, we must\nagree with him that in our general teaching we do lay much less emphasis\non such sins than our Lord does in _His_ teaching.\n\nBut in the paragraph which follows, I confess that, following up a\ncharge which is sadly too true, that there is a grotesque inconsistency\n\"in the willingness of human nature to be taxed with any quantity of\nsins in the gross, and its resentment at the insinuation of having\ncommitted the smallest parcel of them in detail,\" there comes a\nsentence in which the Christian philosopher loses himself in the caustic\nsatirist, and that this vein continues to the end of the letter. In\nsatire, such is its very essence, truth is ever travestied. It is truth\nstill, but the truth in unfamiliar, and, for the most part, unacceptable\nguise. There is just an undercurrent of truth, and no more, in the\nstatement, not very seriously made, one would suppose, that the English\nLiturgy was \"drawn up with the amiable intention of making religion as\npleasant as possible, to a people desirous of saving their souls with no\ngreat degree of personal inconvenience.\"\n\nIf the whole naked truth were spoken with the deepest gravity that the\nawful pressure of our sins demands, the English Liturgy would be a\ncontinuous wail of grief and repentance. For if anything is great, and\nloud, and urgent, it is the cry of our sins. But co-extensive with our\nsins is the love of our Father; and, therefore, our mourning is changed\ninto rejoicing and thankfulness, and this picture of the sinner\n\"dexterously concealing the manner of his sin from man, and\ntriumphantly confessing the quantity of it to God,\" is merely a satire.\n\nThe next paragraph is more bitter still; but happily for the cause of\nsober truth, it is satire again; and nothing can be more obvious than\nthe fact that prayer, to be Common Prayer, cannot at the same time suit\nevery condition of mind, the calm and the agitated, the strained and the\nrelaxed, the rejoicing and the sorrowful. But we are not dependent upon\npublic worship for the satisfaction of our spiritual wants, as long as\nwe can resort to private prayer and family prayer. And, indeed, it\nrequires no wonderful stretch of our powers of adaptation to use the\nmost strenuous private prayer in the midst of the congregation; and the\n\"remorseful publican\" and the \"timid sinner\" are not bound to the words\nbefore them, or if they do follow these words, I am sure there is enough\ndepth in them to satisfy the views of the most conscience-stricken.\nCommon Prayer is calm to the calm, and passionate to the passionate. It\nis all things to all men, just according to their frame of mind at the\ntime.\n\nBut alas for my good kind friend! as we get nearer to the end of the\nletter, the satire waxes fiercer, and the adherence to the truth of\nnature grows fainter. Does Mr. Ruskin seriously, or only sarcastically,\ntell us that the assaults upon the divine power of prayer gain any force\nfrom the circumstance that we are constrained to pray daily for\nforgiveness, never getting so far as to need it no longer? From the\nfirst day that we lisped at our mother's knee, \"Forgive us our\ntrespasses,\" until, bowed with age, we _still_ say, \"Forgive us our\ntrespasses,\" we have never stood, and never will stand, one day less in\nneed of forgiveness than another day--or our Lord would have provided a\nthanksgiving and a prayer for the perfected.\n\nI believe everywhere else I recognize, even in the most startling\npassages, an element of truth. But in the latter half of this letter,\nnot even the large amount of acrimony and severity allowed to the mode\nof address called satire can quite reconcile us to its marvellous\nasperity.\n\n\n\n\n                             ON LETTER XI\n\n\nI cannot but feel astonished and grieved at the perversity of those\nwho[19] persist in looking upon Mr. Ruskin as altogether a noxious kind\nof a scribbler, and likely to do much injury by the unflagging constancy\nwith which he perseveres in pointing his finger at all our weak and sore\nplaces. And yet it cannot be said that even if he does \"lade men with\nburdens grievous to be borne,\" he himself \"touches not the burdens with\none of his fingers.\"\n\n     [19] It was but yesterday that a voice reached me from one of the\n     remotest of our Ultima Thules amongst these mountains, affirming,\n     with something like self-gratulation, that he \"cared less than\n     nothing for anything Mr. Ruskin might write outside the subject of\n     Art!\" Yet one of the best of our Bishops--and we have many good\n     ones--wrote by the same post: \"Mr. Ruskin's letters are full of\n     suggestive thoughts, and must do anyone good, if only in getting\n     one out of the ruts.\" But, alas! against this I must needs set the\n     dictum of another dignitary of the Church, an intensely practical\n     man: \"I have a great reverence for Mr. Ruskin's genius, and for\n     what he has written in time past, and on this account I would\n     rather not say a single word in comment upon these letters;\" and\n     again--\"I really could not discuss them seriously.\"\n\nBut let us consider this last letter. Is not every word of it\ntrue--severely and austerely true,--but still true? But yet here still\nthe fault remains (though I say it with the utmost deference,\nremembering that, after all, I have infinitely more to learn than I have\nto teach), the fault remains that the truth is put too keenly, too\nincisively, to be classed with practical truths.\n\nYes, the petitions of the Lord's Prayer are for a perfect state in this\nlife. We do pray for a Paradise upon earth, where either temptation\nshall no longer exist, or where sin shall have lost its power to injure\nby losing its power to allure. But will the most incessant prayer,\nindividual, combined, or congregational, ever bring us to perfection?\nAlas! my friend, you would gladly persuade us so; you would lead the way\nyourself, but that the first half-dozen steps you take would have, or\nhave long ago, proved to you that sin is ever present, even in the best\nand purest of men.\n\nI trust they are very few indeed who are so easily persuaded by the\nconceited self-sufficiency of the \"scientific people\" to cease from\nprayer under the belief that all things move on under the control of\ninflexible laws, which neither prayer nor the will of God, if God has a\nwill, can change or modify. Magee[20] has a valuable note on the subject\nof the \"Consistency of Prayer with the Divine Immutability,\" in which he\nputs this truth in a mathematical form. He says, \"The relation of God to\nman + prayer is different from the relation of God to man - prayer. Yet\nGod remains constant. It is man who is the better or the worse for\nprayer or no prayer.\"\n\n     [20] On the Atonement.\n\nIt is pleasant to reflect that with the simple-minded Christian the\nbelief in Christ, because he knows that Christ loved him and died for\nhim, is exceedingly little moved by these so-called scientific doubts.\nThe propounders of these entangling questions move in a region where he\nwould feel cold and his life would be crushed out of him, and he\ndeclines to follow science at so great a cost, believing besides that\nscience might often be better termed nescience, for he has no faith in\nsuch science. Instead of being presented with clear deductions, drawn\nfrom observation and experience, he sees but too plainly that, as each\nphilosopher frames his own belief out of his inner consciousness, there\ncannot fail to come out a very large variety of beliefs, and that, if\nthe religion of the Bible were exploded and became an obsolete thing,\nits place would be usurped by a motley crowd of infinitely varied creeds\nof every shape and hue, each claiming for itself, with more or less\nmodesty and reserve, but with just equal rights, the supremacy over\nmen's consciences. And in the meanwhile, women and children and the\npoor, and in fact all who are not altogether highly, transcendentally\nintellectual, must, for want of the requisite faculties and\nopportunities, do without any religion at all. I suppose most people can\nsee this, and therefore will pay a very limited attention to the claims\nand pretensions of science-worship.\n\nI come to a sentence where once more the proclivity for satire breaks\nout for a minute: \"But in modern days the first aim of all Christians is\nto place their children in circumstances where the temptations (which\nthey are apt to call opportunities) may be as great and as many as\npossible; where the sight and promise of 'all these things' in Satan's\ngift may be brilliantly near.\" I was reading this from the MS. to a\nmother, accomplished and amiable, who of course thought in a moment of\nher own little flock of sons and daughters, all the objects of the\ntenderest care and solicitude; and she felt that she at least had not\ndeserved this stroke. But the truth is that we must read this sentence\nas we read our Lord's, \"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:\nI came not to send peace, but a sword\" (Matt. x. 34). The sword was not\nthe object of our Lord's coming, but the unhappy result through sin. He\ncame to bring peace on earth, yet was He \"set for the fall of many in\nIsrael.\" The wisest and best of parents place their sons in the\nprofession or position in life where temptations abound, not because\nthey desire to see them bow before Satan, and become the possessors of\n\"all these things\" which he promises \"I will give thee,\" but because\nthere is no position in the active life of the world that is free from\ntemptations; and those temptations are the strongest and most numerous\noften just where the real and undoubted advantages are the greatest and\nmost numerous. Mr. Ruskin, with a strong and legitimate figure of\nspeech, is simply putting an inevitable result as the work of apparent\ndesign.\n\nIf the distinction between the glory and the power of the kingdom of God\nand the false lustre of earthly power and worldly allurements is not\nsufficiently dwelt upon in our pulpits, none will regret it more than\nthe earnest preachers in whom the modern Church of England abounds. If\nit be granted, as I think it must be granted, that the highest wisdom is\nnot always exercised in the choice and preparation of our subjects of\npreaching, every true-hearted and loyal Churchman must be grateful for\nthe fearless candour of the writer of the letters we have been\nconsidering, in pointing out to us our prevailing deficiencies, even if\nhe does not, which is not his province, point out how to attain\nperfection.\n\n                                                      F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\n\n\n                    LETTERS FROM CLERGY AND LAITY\n\n                       (FROM THE FIRST EDITION)\n\n\nThe following letters have been entrusted to me for publication in this\nwork. The writers of twenty-two of them are clergymen, of whom sixteen\nare members of three Clerical Societies, all of whom have read their\nletters before the Societies to which they belong, except in the case of\none Society, where it was impracticable. The remaining six have been\nkind enough to write in acceptance of the invitation in the\n_Contemporary Review_ for December, 1879. The remaining letters are from\nmembers of the laity, attracted by the same proposal. Many others have\nbeen received; but it would not have been possible to include them all\nin a volume of moderate size, some of them besides being of great\nlength; and I was therefore, with regret, obliged to decline them.\n\nIt was not originally intended that the invitation to discuss these\nquestions should be extended to laymen. But several so understood it\nfrom the preface in the _Contemporary_, and when I came to examine the\nletters sent on this understanding, I felt a conviction that a true and\nsafe light would be thrown upon the subject by their assistance; and,\nusing the discretionary power allowed me by Mr. Ruskin, I thought it, on\nthe whole, best to give admission to a certain number of communications\nfrom laymen.\n\nBesides, as they themselves are, in great measure, the subjects of the\ndiscussion, and, therefore, must feel a lively interest in it, it seems\nbut fair that they too should have a voice in the matter. Another reason\nyet had considerable weight with me, that their letters evince a larger\nand more liberal sympathy with Mr. Ruskin himself than those of some of\nmy clerical brethren, in whose letters there is but too perceptible a\ndegree of irascibility, not unnatural to us, perhaps, in finding\nourselves rather sharply lectured by a layman--the shepherds by the\nsheep. And I hoped that a more fraternal spirit would be promoted by my\nfree acceptance of their ready offer.\n\nThe same consenting spirit is all but universal in the notices of the\npress upon Mr. Ruskin's letters. But I do not wish to anticipate the\njudgment of \"the Church and the world\" upon the whole series of letters\nhere presented. Notwithstanding the peculiar and sometimes rather\nbewildering effect of a variety of \"cross lights,\" they appear to myself\nto be invested with singular interest as a faithful reflection of the\nopinions of the clergy and the laity upon some of the most stirring\nreligious questions of the day.\n\nMoreover, it will, I am sure, please readers who have endeavoured in\nvain to extract some meaning out of many of the sometimes tedious and\nunintelligible essayists of the day, to observe that the discussion in\nthis volume at least is carried on in language perfectly clear and\nwithin the reach of ordinary understandings. At any rate, I hope it will\nnot be said of any of the writers who have together made up this little\nvolume: \"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without\nknowledge?\"\n\nBefore the sheets are sent to press they will be perused by Mr. Ruskin,\nwho will then use his privilege of replying, thus bringing the volume to\na conclusion.\n\nI could not undertake to classify these letters; and have, therefore, as\nthe simplest mode, arranged them in the alphabetical order of the\nwriters' names.\n\n                                                      F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\n\n\n    _From the Rev._ CHARLES BIGG, D.D., _Rector of Fenny Compton_.\n\n\nMr. Ruskin compares the clergyman with an Alpine guide, whose business\nit is simply to carry the traveller in safety over rocks and glaciers to\nthe mountain top. He is not to trouble himself or his charge with\nneedless refinements of doctrine. He is not to exaggerate the dignity of\nhis office, or to give himself out as anything but a guide. In\nparticular, he is not to assume anything of a mediatorial character. He\nis to preach the Gospel--not of Luther nor of Augustine, but of Christ;\nin plain words and short terms. He is to proclaim aloud, boldly and\nconstantly, \"This is the will of the Lord,\"--to apply, that is, the\nmorality of the Gospel, stringently and authoritatively, to the lives of\nhis people. To effect this application with more power, he is to\nexercise a rigid discipline, and exclude from his congregation all who\nare not acting up to what he conceives to be the Gospel ideal. He is not\nto hamper himself with any set and formal Liturgy, which can never be\ncopious or flexible enough to meet the varied needs of a number of men\ndiffering widely in knowledge and attainment.\n\nEvery one will feel what a crowd of perplexities start up here at every\nsentence. In what sense is a clergyman like a Chamouni guide? There is a\nresemblance, no doubt, but not of a kind on which it would be possible\nto build any argument. It is not the business of the Alpine guide to\nexercise any supervision over the morals of his employers, or to ask how\nthey earned the money with which he is paid. Again, what is meant by\nthe Gospel of Christ not according to anybody? It is easy to reject the\nauthority of St. Paul or St. John, or of Luther or Augustine, but there\nis one commentator whose influence cannot be shaken off, and that is\nourselves. And our experience of those who have professed to preach the\nGospel pure and simple is not reassuring. Does Mr. Ruskin mean that we\nare to burn all our theology,--even apparently the Epistles of St.\nPaul,--and to forget all Church history since the day of the\nCrucifixion? Does he mean that we are each to set up a theology--a\nChurch of his own? It would be but a poor gain to most of us to exchange\nthe great lamps of famous doctors for the uncertain rushlights of our\nown imaginations.\n\nThen again, what is this new and more than Genevan discipline that the\nclergyman is to enforce? He is to take more pains to get wicked rich men\nto stay out of the church than to persuade wicked poor ones to enter it.\nAfter putting his own interpretation upon the Gospel, he is to lay under\nan interdict all whom his own fire-new formula--for a formula he must\nstill have--excludes. He is to force, by the method of Procrustes, the\nvisible Church into co-extension with the invisible. No community of\nChristians has ever attempted such a task. Any zealous (surely\nover-zealous) parish priest who should so narrow the limits of his fold,\nwho should exclude the \"usurer\" from the ordinary means of grace, for\nfear lest he should take God's name in vain by joining in the public\nprayers, would expose himself, may we not think? to the reproach of\nbeing less merciful than He who sends rain on the just and the unjust.\nNor, as he looked round upon his carefully-selected congregation, could\nhe easily flatter himself that he was preaching the Gospel \"to every\ncreature.\"\n\nAgain, what is the will of the Lord, and what does Mr. Ruskin mean by\nproclaiming it? That He loves righteousness and hates iniquity we know.\nThe difficulty is in applying this general rule in detail. What is its\nbearing upon the policy of the Government, upon any particular trade\nstrike, upon the tangled web of good and evil motives which makes up the\nmoral consciousness of an average shopkeeper? I conceive Mr. Ruskin to\nbe thinking of preachers like Bernard, Savonarola, or Latimer, of\ndenunciations like those of Isaiah, or of our Lord. He seems to mean\nthat the clergyman should stand on a clear mountain summit, looking down\nover the whole field of life, discerning with the eye of a prophet every\nmovement of evil on a small scale or on a large. There have been such\nteachers in whose hands science, economy, politics, seemed all to become\nbranches of theology, members of one great body of Divine truth. But not\nevery man's lips are thus touched with the coal from the altar. Many an\nexcellent and most useful preacher would make but wild work if he took\nto denouncing social movements or the spirit of the age. A singular\nillustration of the danger that besets these sweeping moral judgments is\nto be found in Mr. Ruskin's own denunciation of usury, that is, of\ntaking interest for money. Few people will agree either with the\nparticular opinion that every old lady who lives harmlessly on her\nrailway dividends ought to be excommunicated, or with the general\nprinciple implied in this opinion, that every prohibition in the Old\nTestament is still as valid as ever under social circumstances\naltogether different.\n\nPeople who need denouncing do not, as a rule, come to church to be\ndenounced. And it would be a great error to conclude, from our Lord's\nlanguage to the Pharisees and Sadducees, that the tone in which He\naddressed the individual sinner was harsh or scathing. The preacher must\nremember that he is a physician of souls, and the physician's touch is\ngentle. Think for a moment what worldliness is--how easy it is to say\nbitter things about it!--and then picture to yourselves a little\ntradesman with a wife and seven or eight children to keep on his scanty\nprofits. What wonder if he sets too high a value on money? How difficult\nfor him to understand the words which bid him take no thought for the\nmorrow!\n\nThere is a time, no doubt, for fierce language, but it does not often\ncome. The preacher is no more exempt than other people from the golden\nrule to put himself in his neighbour's place, and try to see things with\nhis neighbour's eyes.\n\nAnother difficulty arises out of the manner in which Mr. Ruskin speaks\nof the relation of his Chamouni guides to dogmatic teaching. They ought\nnot, he says, to be compelled to hold opinions on the subject, say, of\nthe height of the Celestial Mountains, the crevasses which go down\nquickest to the pit, and other cognate points of science, differing\nfrom, or even contrary to, the tenets of the guides of the Church of\nFrance.\n\nIt is difficult in the extreme to know exactly what is here meant. No\ndoubt it is needless for a guide to drop a plumb-line down every\ncrevasse that he has to cross. It would be great waste of time to\nlecture his travellers on the laws that regulate the motion of glaciers\nor the dip of the mountain strata. But what are the doctrines that stand\nin this relation, or this no-relation, to the spiritual life? Is it\nmeant that all theology should be swept away like a dusty old cobweb?\n\nI would go myself as far as this, that the fewer and simpler the\ndoctrines that a clergyman preaches, the better; that all doctrines\nshould be required to pass the test of reason and conscience, which are\nalso in their degrees Divine revelations, so far, at least, as this,\nthat no doctrine can be admitted which is demonstrably repugnant to\neither one or the other. And in the third place, the greatest care\nshould be taken to discriminate matters of faith, real axioms of\nreligion, from pious opinions or venerable practices which have no vital\nconnection with the Christian faith; which, to use Burke's phrase, all\nunderstandings do not ratify, and all hearts do not approve. A grave\nresponsibility rests upon those who neglect this discrimination. It is\nalso a point of the highest importance that when most doctrinal a\nclergyman should be least dogmatic; that he should remember that all\ndoctrine, by the necessity of the case, is cast into an antithetical,\nmore or less paradoxical shape; that he should never lose sight of the\nharmony and balance between intersecting truths, or of that unfortunate\ntendency of the human mind to seize upon and appropriate points of\ndifference in their crudest and most antagonistic form, to the exclusion\nof points of agreement; that he should always do his best to show the\nreasonableness of the Christian teaching, its analogy and harmony with\nall the works of God; that where his knowledge fails, he should frankly\nconfess that it does fail, and not try to eke it out by guesses, or to\ndisguise its insufficiency by rhetoric.\n\nBut after all these allowances it remains a fact that the clergyman is\nnot a guide only, but a teacher, an ambassador. He is to teach his\npeople all that he knows about God and His relation to the soul of man.\nHe is to study and meditate himself, and to set forth the conclusion he\nhas reached fully and fearlessly. And if he discharges this duty\nreasonably and zealously, he need not be afraid of finding that there is\na gulf fixed between doctrine and practice. These two must go together.\nThere can be no conduct deserving the name without a philosophy of\nconduct, and that philosophy is a sound divinity. Even the loftiest and\nmost abstruse doctrines must have an influence upon life. It is a common\nremark that scientific truth should be pursued for its own sake, and\nthat the most valuable practical results have often followed from\ninvestigations carried out with a single eye to the truth. It is an\nequally common remark that those teach the simplest things best whose\nrange of knowledge and belief is widest. We might point to Mr. Ruskin\nhimself as a striking illustration of this. What is simpler than beauty?\nwhat more universally apprehended? what at first sight more incapable of\nanalysis? Yet as we listen to the great critic, what wonderful laws does\nhe point out--what a wealth of knowledge does he bring to bear--how\nclear he makes it to us that the power of feeling (still more the power\nof creating) beauty is the hard-won fruit of labour, study, and\ndevotion. So it is with life: those who would create a beautiful life\nmust know the laws of spiritual beauty,--and those laws are theology.\n\nBut criticism is a thankless task. It is a more gracious and, towards a\ngreat man, a more respectful office to note those points on which our\ndebt to Mr. Ruskin is acknowledged, and our sympathy with him unalloyed.\nThese letters are, in spirit at any rate, not unworthy of the man who\nhas exercised a deeper and wider influence upon the morality of our time\nthan any other, except perhaps Thomas Carlyle. And the great lesson of\neach of these eloquent teachers is the duty of Reality. There are many\npoints in which we do not agree with them: let us be all the readier to\nacknowledge the debt that we owe. Both laymen,--like Amos, neither\nprophets nor sons of prophets,--they have done a work which, perhaps,\nunder the altered circumstances of society, no professional preacher\ncould have achieved. Any one who considers the earnestness and reverence\nof modern intellectual literature; the anxious desire even of the\nAgnostic to lay the foundations of his moral life as deep as possible;\nthe manifold efforts, while denying all religion, yet to maintain the\nunion of imagination and reason, without which there can be no loftiness\nof character, no nobility of aspiration, yet which nothing but religion\ncan consecrate and fructify,--and compares all this with the sneering,\nself-satisfied flippancy of Gibbon and Voltaire, will feel how vast is\nthe change for the better; and these two writers have been the chief\ninstruments in bringing that change about.\n\nLet me notice briefly two points on which Mr. Ruskin insists in these\nletters with great force and beauty. The first is the love of the\nFather. No text is more familiar than that which tells us that \"God is\nlove.\" It is not indeed inconsistent with that other text which tells\nus that He is \"a consuming fire.\" But if its meaning is fully imbibed\nand allowed to bear its natural fruit, it must result in the abandonment\nof those forensic views of our blessed Lord's atonement, which all the\nsubtlety of Canon Mozley cannot bring into harmony with the dictates of\nour consciences. If the Father is love, there can be no division, no\nantithesis between the Father and the Son. If He is love, then the idea\nof sacrifice, which is of the essence of love, must enter into our\nconception of the Father also. I say no more about this, because any one\nwho chooses to do so may find the Fatherhood of God, and all that it\nimplies, treated of with great fulness and a marvellous depth of\nspiritual insight in the letters of Erskine of Linlathen.\n\nIt can hardly be doubted that the kind of language which Protestants of\na certain class have been, and still are, in the habit of using, about\nthe \"Scheme of Redemption,\" constitutes a most serious stumbling-block\nin the way of many an earnest spirit. There are few preachers probably,\nand few congregations now,--in the Establishment at any rate,--who\nwould not revolt against the hideous calmness with which Jonathan\nEdwards contemplates the \"little spiders\" dropping off into the flames.\nBut a great deal of mischief remains to be undone. Those who are\nacquainted with the biographies of Shelley, of James and of John Stuart\nMill, know well what effect the fierce doctrines of Calvinism have\nproduced upon minds which for the issues of morality and, surely, even\nof religion, were \"finely touched.\" And who can tell what horror and\nindignation have been wrought in some minds, what agonies of despair in\nothers, who, when at last the blessed work of repentance began to stir\nwithin them, and they turned their eyes for comfort to the cross, were\nmet by the terrible warning that none but the select few can call God\ntheir Father, and that in all probability their own eternal tortures\nwere decreed before ever they entered the world?\n\nThe other point to which I must briefly advert is Mr. Ruskin's protest\nagainst the use of words which imply--which leave the least possibility\nof hoping for--a mechanical absolution, a pardon of sins that have not\nbeen abandoned. I do not indeed think that the reproach of using such\nlanguage falls upon those who are fond of the title of priests alone,\nfor the doctrines of Calvinism are far more liable to abuse. Nor do I\nthink that any preaching of our clergy on this subject can be said to\nhave \"turned our cities into loathsome centres of fornication and\ncovetousness.\" But here, if anywhere, we ought never to forget the\ndanger of even seeming to set Theology against Reason and Conscience, of\nallowing the least pretext for thinking that a mere intellectual assent\nto abstract truths on the one hand, a mere acceptance of ecclesiastical\nordinances on the other, can wipe away sins; or that a heart unpurified\nby charity and obedience, could be at rest even in the kingdom of\nheaven.\n\n\n\n\n     _From the Rev._ CANON COOPER, _Vicar of Grange-over-Sands_.\n\n\nThank God, all good men are broader and better than their creed,--better\nand broader, I mean, than those parts of their creed which they insist\nupon most, because they distinguish them from other people. (These\ndistinguishing points are always of the least importance, in my\nopinion.) And with my experience of sermons for nearly forty years (for\nI was very early \"called upon to hear sermons\"), I am not conscious of\nsuch universal omissions on the part of the \"priests\" of the Church of\nEngland as Mr. Ruskin affirms. The universality of the _love_ of God the\n_Father_, embracing even the \"_wicked rich_\" as well as the \"wicked\npoor,\" is largely dwelt upon by all \"schools.\"\n\nThe kingdom of God _in this present sinful world_ is preached and is\nlaboured for. In the present, however, it is more correctly described as\nthe _kingdom of Christ_. When \"the end comes,\" \"He shall deliver up the\nkingdom to God, _even the Father_\" (1 Cor. xv. 24, and _seqq._) As for\ndenouncing the sins of the rich, this is largely done, and especially by\n\"lively young ecclesiastics\" in great towns. And as to preaching\nforgiveness without amendment, no man of common sense can do that; but\nMr. Ruskin may say that common sense is rare among the clergy; and some\nmay be afraid to preach morality, because of an old-fashioned\nsuperstition that _morality_ is opposed to the _Gospel_. However, I do\nnot hear much of such preaching. As for the duty of every man to do\nsomething of the work of the world for his daily bread, that is largely\ntaught; and I believe that the kingdom of God is coming in that respect.\nA great deal of the drudgery of the world is done by big men now. Also I\nthink that the sinfulness of _omission_ is much insisted on by the\nclergy, as it is abundantly noticed in the Prayer Book, in accordance\nwith the clear teaching of Christ. And the same may be said upon the\n_personal guilt_ of sin. A good clergyman never allows his people to\nshelter themselves _in a crowd_.\n\nI do not feel the force of the taunt about our saying every week, \"There\nis no health in us,\" because the most \"healthy\" Christian finds out\nalways fresh failings as his conscience grows more healthy (not morbidly\nsensitive), and he is always ready to join in the general confession to\nhis dying day.\n\nThere is some value in the remark about Christian parents putting their\nchildren into situations where they will be tempted to worship the\ndevil in order to win the kingdom of the world; but here, as elsewhere,\nthe exaggeration, for the sake of being forcible, is too marked.\n\n\n\n\n                  _From the Rev._ HENRY M. FLETCHER.\n\n\n\"Yes,\" I should say, \"it is possible to put the Gospel of Christ into\nsuch plain words and short terms as that a plain man may understand it,\nand plain men do understand it. And it is not left to be gathered out of\n(any of) the Thirty-nine Articles, which are meant not for simple but\nfor clerkly people.\"\n\nYou seem to have felt it startling that Mr. Ruskin should ask for a\nsimple and comprehensible statement of the Christian Gospel--at least\nMr. Ruskin represents the case so. What Christ's ministers are bidden to\ngo into all the world and preach is--the good news that God has\nreconciled the world unto Himself in Jesus Christ His Son; and that\nwhosoever will accept this Jesus as His Lord and Saviour shall have\neternal life through Him. You could not, I think, arrive at a\ndefinition of what the Gospel of Christ is by explaining the terms of\nthe Lord's Prayer.\n\nYou must tell first about _Jesus_, our Lord, and what He has done,\nbefore child or man can have any proper notion of \"the Gospel.\" The\nGospel is a message from \"Our Father which is in Heaven,\" of His love,\nand of what His love--the love of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--has\ndevised and executed for the redemption and glorification (through\nsanctification) of His rebellious children.\n\nThere can be small objection taken to Mr. Ruskin's proposal to make the\nLord's Prayer \"a foundation of Gospel teaching, as containing what all\nChristians are agreed upon as first to be taught,\" if the \"Gospel\nteaching\" is understood to be \"teaching the truth to _Christians_.\" But\n\"the Gospel teaching or preaching,\" which is spoken of by Mr. Ruskin, is\n\"Gospel preaching\" to the world not yet Christian, either Jewish or\nheathen; and the Lord's Prayer cannot properly be taken as a foundation\nof Gospel teaching to it. It must be told first of Jesus and His work,\nand must have owned Him \"Lord,\" before it can rightly be taught from\n_His_ prayer. This prayer can have no _authority_ but to those who have\nbecome His disciples. Those who are already His disciples learn\nnaturally from Him their relation and their duty to His Father and their\nFather. St. Paul, in preaching to the Athenians, dwells not on the\nFatherhood _of God_, but on the need of repentance as a preparation for\nthe judgment which awaits all. \"Jesus and the Resurrection\" was what\nthey heard of first from this model preacher.\n\n\n\n\n                   _From the Rev._ A. T. DAVIDSON.\n\n\nMY DEAR SIR,--Permit me to say one thing with regard to the\ncorrespondence which has passed between Mr. Ruskin and yourself.\n\nProfitable as it is to listen to Mr. Ruskin, the student of Mr.\nMaurice's writings will merely find in these remarkable letters an\nadditional plea on behalf of those truths for which Mr. Maurice so\nbravely and so passionately contended. It is most refreshing to find two\nsuch teachers in accord; and probably there will be many who will learn\nfrom Mr. Ruskin what they never would have learnt, or even sought for,\nfrom Mr. Maurice. It is, of course, for the truth, and not for his\nindividual statement of it, that Mr. Ruskin, even as Mr. Maurice did,\ncontends. It will, I am sure, be a matter of small moment to him so long\nas the truth be sought for, whether it be arrived at by means of these\nletters, or by means of Mr. Maurice's books on \"The Lord's Prayer,\" \"The\nPrayer Book,\" and \"The Commandments.\"\n\nBelieve me, my dear Sir, to be yours faithfully.\n\n\n\n\n                  _From the Rev._ EDWARD GEOGHEGAN.\n\n\n                                          BARDSEA VICARAGE, ULVERSTON.\n\n\"Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a\nfriend. Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness: and let him\nreprove me, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my\nhead.\"\n\nIt is in the spirit which is expressed in these words that I desire to\noffer the following notes on Mr. Ruskin's Letters. Among the charges\nwhich he brings against the clergy are the following:--\n\nThat we have no clear idea of our calling, or of the Gospel of Christ\n(Letters III. and IV.)\n\nThat we profane the name of God in the pulpit (Letter VI.)\n\nThat we teach that every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the\nLord, and He delighteth in them (Letter VIII.)\n\nThat we hold our office to be that, not of showing men how to do their\nFather's will on earth, but how to get to heaven without doing any of it\neither here or there (Letter VIII.)\n\nThat we neither profess to understand what the will of the Lord is, nor\nto teach anybody else to do it (Letter VIII.)\n\nThat we pretend to absolve the sinner from his punishment, instead of\npurging him from his sin (Letter VIII.)\n\nThat we patronize and encourage all the iniquity of the world by\nsteadily preaching away the penalties of it (Letter VIII.)\n\nThat we gather, each into himself, the curious dual power and\nJanus-faced majesty in mischief of the prophet that prophesies falsely,\nand the priest that bears rule by his means (Letter VIII.)\n\nThat we do not exercise discipline by keeping wicked people out of\nchurch (Letter VI.)\n\nThat we do not require each member of our flocks to tell us what they do\nto earn their dinners (Letter IX.)\n\nThat we encourage people in hypocrisy, by inviting them to the\nauthorized mockery of a confession of sin (Letter X.)\n\nI cannot examine the evidence which Mr. Ruskin possesses in support of\nthese charges, as he has not produced it in these Letters. Neither can I\nattempt to refute the accusations. To prove a negative is always\ndifficult; it becomes an impossible task when the indictment is laid not\nagainst any individuals mentioned by name, but against a whole order. I\nwill only observe, that even if all these charges be true, the people of\nEngland are not in such evil case as Mr. Ruskin fancies. The laity of\nEngland possess the inestimable advantage of not being dependent on the\nsermons of their clergy for either doctrine, or correction, or\ninstruction in righteousness. Even though a clergyman should never\nutter certain doctrines of Christ from the pulpit, or reprove certain\nsins, he is obliged to do so at the font, at the lectern, and at the\naltar. Although from the pulpits of the fifty hundreds of clergy whom\nMr. Ruskin heard, he never heard so much as _one_ clergyman heartily\nproclaiming that no covetous person, which is an idolater, hath any\ninheritance in the kingdom of God, he must have often heard this\nproclamation from the altar, in the epistle for the third Sunday in\nLent, and from the lectern whenever the fifth chapter of the Epistle to\nthe Ephesians is read for the lesson.\n\nAgain, if any clergyman teaches from the pulpit that for the redemption\nof the world people ought to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the\nSon (Letter V.), he is obliged to publicly contradict his own teaching\nas often as he says the General Thanksgiving, and the collects in the\nBook of Common Prayer.\n\nAgain, if any clergyman teaches from the pulpit that any one who does\nevil is good in the sight of the Lord, or that there is any other\nsalvation except a salvation from sin, he is obliged to publicly\ncontradict that teaching by everything which he says in the church out\nof the pulpit.\n\nAgain, if any clergyman preaches away the penalties of sin (Letter\nVIII.), he is obliged to publicly contradict his preaching every Ash\nWednesday, when he reads the general sentences of God's cursing against\nimpenitent sinners.\n\nMr. Ruskin asks (Letter III.), \"Can this Gospel of Christ be put into\nsuch plain words and short terms as that a plain man may understand it?\"\nI answer that the English Church has tried to do this in the Catechism,\nin which every baptized child is taught in very simple and plain words\nthe gospel, or good news, that God the Father has, in His Son Jesus\nChrist, adopted him or her into His family, and therein offers him or\nher the continual help of the Holy Ghost.\n\nMr. Ruskin complains that the clergy do not teach the people the meaning\nof the Lord's Prayer (Letter VI.) He must assume that the clergy neglect\nto teach children the Church Catechism, in which is an answer to the\nquestion, \"What desirest thou of God in this prayer?\" It is an answer\nwhich would probably satisfy Mr. Ruskin. He would see that \"Hallowed be\nThy name\" does not merely mean that people ought to abstain from bad\nlanguage. And in the explanation of the third commandment, he would see\nthat something more is forbidden than letting out a round oath (Letter\nVI.)\n\nMr. Ruskin complains that the clergy do not prevent the entrance among\ntheir congregations of persons leading openly wicked lives (Letter VI.)\nBefore this can be charged on the clergy as a sin, he should show that\nthey have power and authority to do this. In the service for Ash\nWednesday he will find that the clergy express their desire for a\nrestoration of the godly discipline of the primitive Church, which Mr.\nRuskin also desires. But he ought to know that such restoration must be\nthe work not of the clergy only, but of the whole body of the faithful.\n\nMr. Ruskin insinuates that the clergy have no clear idea of their\ncalling (Letter III.) If this be so, it is certainly not the fault of\nthe Church, seeing that the nature of the calling of a clergyman is\nplainly set forth in the Offices for the Ordering of Bishops, Priests,\nand Deacons. But if one may form an opinion from many published sermons\nby English clergymen of various schools of thought, and from their\nspeeches in Church Congresses and elsewhere, and from their pastoral\nwork as parish priests, I should be inclined to think that they are not\nquite so ignorant of the nature of their calling and of the Gospel of\nChrist as Mr. Ruskin supposes them to be, and that of some of the sins,\nnegligences, and ignorances which, in these Letters, he lays to their\ncharge, they may plead not guilty, or at least not proven by Mr. Ruskin.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  BARDSEA, ULVERSTON,\n                                                 _November 3rd, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I thank you for your letter, which I received this\nmorning. Second thoughts are not always the best. Your own first thought\nabout the motto which I prefixed to my notes was right; your second\nthought was wrong. It never occurred to me that anyone could possibly\nsuppose that that motto was by me intended to be applied to myself,\ninasmuch as in these notes there is no \"wound\" inflicted on Mr. Ruskin,\nor even any \"rebuke.\" On the contrary, I assume that he has evidence in\nsupport of his charges, although he has not produced it. The \"rebuke\" to\nwhich I alluded was _Mr. Ruskin's_ rebuke. _He_ is the \"friend\" whose\nwounds are faithful, and whose smitings are a kindness. For I have not\nthe least doubt of his good-will towards the clergy, or of his earnest\ndesire to see them all performing their sacred duties with zeal and\nknowledge. And it was as my acknowledgment of this that I prefixed the\nmotto. With you I firmly believe that the standard which he takes is\n\"lofty and Christian,\" and that it is one towards which we ought all of\nus to aim. The object of my notes was to show that the laity of England\nhave, in the authorized teaching of the Church, a sufficient safeguard\nagainst any erroneous teaching which they may possibly hear from the\npulpit or in the private ministrations of the clergy, and also a\nsupplement to any defective teaching.\n\n                                      Very truly yours,\n                                                EDWARD GEOGHEGAN.\n\n\n\n\n                     _From_ JOSEPH GILBURT, Esq.\n\n\n                                                 _Christmas Day_, 1879.\n\nThe words \"Thy will be done\" are generally coupled with resignation, and\nvery often with patience under chastisement. It is always to us a\nsad-coloured sentence, and a sentimental illuminator of the Lord's\nPrayer would in all probability make it so. Now, if we think for a\nmoment what the state of things would be if the will of the Lord were\ndone, we shall see it should be the brightest sentence we could\nconceive. God's will is our weal. Aspiration, not resignation, is the\ncharacteristic of its doing. There would certainly be no death,--that is\ndecidedly contrary to His will; and by-and-by, when His will is done,\nthere will be none. For the present, while His will is not yet done, we\nhave the sure and certain hope that death will be--nay, is--conquered by\nanticipation.\n\nIf His will were done, all beautiful things would flourish, and all\nminds would answeringly rejoice in them.\n\nOur men of the piercing eye--Turners, Hunts, Ruskins, etc.--show us,\ntill we almost worship the state of things in cloud and mountain, river\nand sea, in hedgerow and wayside, even in cathedral and campanile, where\nGod's will is done, and we are enchanted with their beauty. It is God's\nwill that stones should be laid truly and carven well, and aptly\ndescribed. And our men of the probe and the lens, the scientific openers\nof nature's secrets, are daily demonstrating new beauties in which the\nwill of the Lord is done in the formation of bodies and working of\nforces. It is mere truism to add to this that the will of the Lord being\ndone, none of the ills that are all of them indirectly or directly the\nresult of not doing it could occur, and resignation would have no scope\nfor exercise. There was One who always did it, and He for three years\nmade sundry parts of Palestine a heaven,--with what results a many\nquondam poor folk testified. This leads me to say that I like to look\nupon the word heaven as a participle instead of a noun, as the state of\nbeing heaved or raised, rather than a place: and for this reason. The\nexperience of every one of us suffices to prove that we are never so\n_heaven_, or raised in true happiness, moral dignity, and worth, as\nwhen we are in the company of one greater, wiser, or better than\nourselves. Those who lead a humdrum life among mean persons, can testify\nwhat a heaven it is to be transplanted for ever so short a time to the\ncompany of a great and good man. Now the culminating, indeed\nall-absorbing, attraction of the heaven we all look to, is the presence\nand the companionship of the greatest and best; and the experience of\nourselves tallies with the promise of St. John that it will have the\neffect of making us \"like Him,\" when \"we shall see Him as He is.\" Surely\nbeing _heaven_, or raised like that, is superior to any Mahomet's\nparadise that we can invent or distil out of the poetical parts of the\nScriptures.\n\n\n\n\n                    _From the Rev._ ARCHER GURNEY.\n\n\nMr. Ruskin's view as to the duty of basing all upon the Father's love is\nessentially sound and orthodox; and he is also right in bidding all men\nlead self-denying lives,--in this sense, that they should give up time\nand labour to the endeavour to help their brethren; but he fails\nutterly, hopelessly, to realize the Incarnation and its glorious\nconsequences, how all human life and love,--how art, science, knowledge,\nenjoyment, are sanctified by God's becoming man; sharing this human life\nof ours,--not to trample upon it as an unholy thing, but to consecrate\nit to God's service. Such is our call. We must enjoy the beautiful to\nvindicate enjoyment. We do not please God by casting all His choicest\ngifts away. To give all we have to feed the poor is the way to make men\npoor, and is false charity. Use rather the mammon of this world to God's\nhonour and glory, and when ye fail, the good works that you have done\nshall plead for your entrance into everlasting habitations; for the way\nto clothe the naked and feed the hungry, permanently, is to teach men\nand women to help themselves, and to find employment and reward for the\nexercise of their powers and energies.\n\n\n\n\n             _From the Rev._ J. H. A. GIBSON, _Brighton_.\n\n\nTo Mr. Ruskin, then, asking us to define ourselves as a body, I reply,\nWe are presbyters and deacons, deriving our authority from the\nepiscopate, who themselves form links in that spiritual chain which\nbinds both ourselves and them, by perpetual succession, in one communion\nand fellowship, with the Apostles, and to whom has been committed the\noffice of consecrating and sending forth labourers to work in the Lord's\nvineyard.\n\nBut Mr. Ruskin proceeds, \"And our business as such.\" Our business as\nsuch! Well, if we have in any satisfactory manner proved our first\npoint--_that_ is, the authority with which we act--we may fairly say to\nMr. Ruskin, \"Do you put this question, 'What is your business?' to your\nlawyer or doctor?\" Does he ask the same question of the clergy of any\nother portion of the Catholic Church? We shall not wish to insult Mr.\nRuskin by attempting to explain to him the duties of the priesthood,\nwith which, doubtless, he is well acquainted.\n\nBut he asks, \"Do we look upon ourselves as attached to any particular\nState, and bound to the promulgation of any particular tenets?\" We are\nundoubtedly attached to the particular sphere to the which we are sent\nby those whose office is to provide the various parts of God's vineyard\nwith labourers. The Anglican Church is the legitimate representative of\nthe Catholic Church of Christ in England; and we, as clergy of this\nChurch, minister for the most part to our countrymen at home, and only\nin other countries as the necessities of our colonists and others may\nrequire. And, as subscribers to the Prayer Book and priests of the\nChurch of England, we are certainly bound to teach faithfully and\nhonestly her doctrines, neither adding to them nor taking away from them\naccording to our own individual idiosyncrasies.\n\n\n\n\n                     _From the Rev._ CANON GRAY.\n\n\n                                     WOLSINGHAM, _October 13th, 1879_.\n\nMY DEAR PENRHYN,--Will you please to thank Mr. Malleson on my behalf for\nthe Letters on the Lord's Prayer? I have ever admired Ruskin, and learn\nmuch even when I most differ from him. But if I had the good fortune to\nbe with you to-morrow, I fear that I should constantly be demurring to\nhis teaching,--_e.g._ (Letter III.) his supposition that the Thirty-nine\nArticles were meant to include a summary of the Gospel; (Letter V.) his\nbelief that there is need now to warn men against being thankful not to\nthe Father but only to the Son,--a remnant of the teaching of his youth;\n(p. 20) his hard way of speaking as to the Son of Man, Whose human soul,\nas that of perfect man, received its knowledge in steps according to His\nown will as perfect God; (Letter VII.) his confused distinction between\nthe Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ (see Eph. v. 5 in the\nGreek, and remember \"_tradendo tenet_\" on 1 Cor. xv. 24); his belief\nthat because no one knoweth the hour of Christ's coming, it cannot be\nhastened by prayer; (Letter VIII.) his seeming identification of\nclaiming interest from a poor man who is in need and necessity, and from\na railway company who borrow money to make more,--speaking, as far as I\ncan see, of money as if it had no market value like other things;\n(Letter X.) the belief that we clergy are not awake to the guilt of sins\nof omission; (Letter X.) the inability to see that the nearer and nearer\nby God's grace we come, in answer to prayer, to purity and holiness, the\nmore we _realize_ our distance from them; and that his objection to our\nLiturgy might be adapted into one against the Lord's Prayer, in which we\npray daily for forgiveness of sins, and deliverance from evil, showing\nthat we never shall be so delivered as no longer to need forgiveness;\n(Letter XI.) the supposition that any one state of life is necessarily\nmore full of temptations than another, as though the fruit of a tree\nwere not to Eve what the glory of the world was to the Son of Man, at\nleast in the eye of the Tempter.\n\nI am ashamed to jot down thus obscurely the points on which I should\nhave liked to speak, and I know that our brethren can fully deal with\nthem. On the other hand (Letter VIII.) there is much to move us, and\nlead to searchings of heart. As to the timidity and coldness with which\nthe Church is attacking the crying sins of our day, one often feels how\nwe need some among us to speak as the prophets did to the men of their\ngeneration, and we may be thankful to have our shortcomings brought home\nto us by words like Ruskin's.\n\nI wish I were not writing so hurriedly.\n\nRemember me most affectionately to all my old and true friends who are\nwith you to-morrow.\n\n\n[NOTE.--_March 12th, 1880_:--\n\nMr. Malleson has kindly brought this letter of mine again before me.\nHasty and concise as it was, I have no wish to expand it, as Mr.\nRuskin's Letters are now _publici juris_, and in the hands of many a\ncritic, who will rejoice to deal with them according to his wisdom. I\nshould be thankful, however, for leave to add a few words on one point.\nI cannot help having misgivings as to whether I was right in demurring\nwithout hesitation to \"the supposition that one state of life is\nnecessarily more free from temptations than another,\" for I well know\nthat in favour of such a supposition there is a strong _consensus_ of\njust men. I am, however, one of those who believe that the shorter\nBeatitude, \"Blessed be ye poor,\" (Luke vi. 20) is explained by the\nlonger, \"Blessed are the poor in spirit.\" I see, also, that the\ndifficulty with which \"they that have riches\" enter the kingdom of God\nis reasserted with a qualification in the very next verse, which speaks\nof those \"who trust in riches\" (St. Mark x. 23, 24). \"Who then can be\nsaved?\" asked the disciples, who, poor men indeed themselves, first\nheard of this difficulty, instinctively perceiving, it may be, that it\nhas its root in temptations from which in one shape or other no one is\nfree. I read that \"the cares of this world,\" as well as \"the\ndeceitfulness of riches,\" choke the Word; and I am sure that into the\nnumber of those \"who will be rich,\" or \"who are wishing to be rich,\" and\nso \"fall into temptation,\" a poor man may but too easily find his way. I\nlike to remember that when \"the beggar died,\" he was carried into the\nbosom of one who had been \"very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold;\"\nand I think that very deep and far-stretching may be the meaning of the\nwords of the wise man, \"The rich and poor meet together, and the Lord is\nthe Maker of them all.\"]\n\n\n\n\n  _From the Rev._ H. N. GRIMLEY, _Norton Rectory, Bury St. Edmunds_.\n\n\nMr. Ruskin's Letters have already been closely scrutinized. What have\nseemed to be blemishes in them have been commented on. They have been\nspoken of as somewhat random utterances--as utterances such as are\npardonable in a layman, but would be inexcusable in a clergyman who\nshould endeavour to instruct his brethren. It has been said of them that\nthey manifest a want of knowledge of teaching constantly being given\nfrom Church of England pulpits. It would be quite possible for the\npresent paper to be devoted to a continuation of the like free criticism\nof the Letters. I might ask, for instance, whether Mr. Ruskin, after (in\nLetter V.) speaking with condemnation of a plan of salvation which sets\nforth the Divine Son as appeasing the wrath of the Father in heaven,\ndoes not himself give expression to words, as to the love of the Father,\nwhich almost imply that in his estimation the Divine mind is not in\nunity in itself? I might further ask for Mr. Ruskin to put more\ndefiniteness into his remarks on usury, and to particularize the\nspecial forms of that condemnable practice which the clergy should\nboldly denounce. The few hints which he throws out on this subject show\nthat to his own thoughts there is present an exalted socialism. He\nhimself in previous writings, while shadowing forth a social system\nbased on unselfishness, has carefully deprecated any revolutionary\nattempt to hasten the establishment of such a system, and would prefer\nthat it should be waited for while it quietly and with orderliness\nevolves itself out of the present imperfect order of things. Is it not\nso evolving itself? Does not the co-operative movement, now steadily\nadvancing, spring out of the recognition of the fact that mutual welfare\nis a far more excellent thing to be attained than the enrichment of the\nfew at the expense of the many? And if, with regard to the land\nquestion, any readjustment of relations is made, will it not be made in\nthe light of the same beneficent principle? If, however, the clergy were\nto give heed to Mr. Ruskin's words, and at once proceed to the\nindiscriminate excommunication of usurers, would they not be initiating\na social revolution, altogether different from that orderly upgrowth of\na better state of things which has commended itself aforetime to Mr.\nRuskin himself? My own impression is that I shall be giving voice to a\nwish that will spring up wherever Mr. Ruskin's Letters may be read, if I\nsay that a clearer, more definite utterance on the usury question would\nbe welcomed. The clergy everywhere would receive with thankfulness any\nhints as to how they might hasten the coming of the day when the Church\nof Christ will no longer embrace within her borders the few, with a\nuseless excess of wealth, and around them the unhappy many, hopelessly,\nsqualidly destitute; along, too, with a vast number of toiling teachers,\nclergy, artists, and literary workers, living mostly on the verge of\npennilessness--men of whose existence Mr. Ruskin has, in earlier\nwritings, expressed himself as keenly and sympathetically conscious.\n\nBut I will not linger on such parts of Mr. Ruskin's Letters as may seem\nto display inconsistency, or to need more precision of language before\nthey can be practically useful. I will proceed to speak of those for\nwhich, as it seems to me, the clergy may unhesitatingly be very\ngrateful to Mr. Ruskin for laying them before them.\n\nAnd first, I think we cannot be other than thankful to Mr. Ruskin for\nsounding at the outset a note of catholicity. He asks the clergy of the\nEnglish Church (let me say he asks us,--he asks you and me), whether we\nlook upon ourselves as the clergy of a mere insular Church, or as the\nclergy of the Church Universal. Is the teaching we are continually\ngiving utterance to as to the conduct of life in harmony with, or\ndifferent from, the teaching of the Christian Churches on the Continent\nof Europe? Mr. Ruskin's tone, in asking these questions, is such as\nimplies that it would be no satisfaction to him to hear from us that we\nrejoice in considering ourselves as severed from the clergy of the\nChristian Church abroad. Indeed, he goes on to assume that we, with one\nconsenting voice, admit our fellowship with the rest of\nChristendom--that we recognize as our brothers the clergy of the Church\nof France, and of the Church of Italy, and of the Church everywhere.\n\nMr. Ruskin thus does not lend the support of his name to any useless\nProtestantism. There are senses in which the whole Christian Church must\never be a Protestant Church, and in which even individual members may\nfrom time to time raise protesting voices. The Church must ever lift up\nher protest against all influences that work in the world for\nevil--against whatsoever tends to overthrow the Christian ideals of\nindividual, family, social, national, and international life. She must\nprotest against all hindrances, even though they may spring up within\nher own borders, which tend to prevent her from putting any beneficent\nimpress upon human handiwork and upon manifestations of human genius.\nShe must protest against the very Protestantism in her midst which has\nserved to paganize art and to demoralize the drama, by banishing both to\nan outer region of darkness which Gospel rays cannot be expected to\nillumine. She must protest vigorously against the mischievous\nProtestantism which impoverishes the intellect and chills the\naffections, by causing men to devote the whole energies of their lives\nto protesting against systems of thought with which they are very\nimperfectly acquainted, and to maintaining an attitude of perpetual\nsuspicion as to others' aims and motives. Under the influence of such\nProtestantism as this, many have been possessed with the assurance that\na vast number of the clergy of Christendom live for no other end than to\nconspire against freedom, to disseminate falsities, and to work ruin\namongst human souls. This Protestantism is fast ceasing to have any\npower amongst us; still, as it is not quite extinct, it is comforting to\nfind that Mr. Ruskin does not attribute it to the main body of those\nwhom he addresses.\n\nTo me it seems that an habitual protesting attitude on the part of those\nwho are called upon to be the teachers of the Church implies that they\nhave not themselves properly entered the temple of Christian truth. He\nto whom Christian doctrine has revealed itself in all its wondrous\nharmony cannot do other than devote himself to unfolding to others what\nis ever present to his own mind, so that he may aid in building up their\nthoughts consistently and symmetrically, and thus help to establish them\nfirmly in the Christian faith.\n\nWe may, then, it seems to me, express our thankfulness that Mr. Ruskin\nhas spoken, though ever so briefly, a word of encouragement to the\nclergy of the English Church amongst whom the thought of a future of\nreunion for Christendom has been welcomed. Mr. Ruskin is familiar with\nthe practical working of the Christian Church in Italy and elsewhere on\nthe Continent, and seeing, as he has seen, that her influence is exerted\ntowards securing an orderly and healthy state of social life, he does\nnot give circulation to the indiscriminate calumnies which were once\nwont to be uttered, and which were alike at variance with the truth and\nprovocative of a mischievous severance of Christians from one another.\n\nBut we must, I think, be more especially grateful to Mr. Ruskin for his\ncalling widespread attention to the great Christian doctrine of the\nFatherhood of God. There is especial need for this being uplifted before\nthe thoughts of men at the present day, and it is being so uplifted. The\nmore it is upheld, the more fully will it be discerned. It cannot be\nsaid that the doctrine is not accepted within the English Church. Still,\nit has not yet been received in all its fulness. Amongst the\nseparatists outside the borders of our Church, the doctrine that God is\nthe Father of all humanity, and the loving Father too, is rejected in\ntwo extreme ways. The set of \"believers\" who adopt the one extreme view\nconsider that the Lord's Prayer--so luminous, as Mr. Ruskin reminds us,\nwith the thought of God's fatherly love--should be used only by the\nelect, such as themselves, and that all others have no right to address\nGod as their Father. The other set of so-called \"believers\" considers\nwith a deplorable Pharisaism that they have arrived at such a stage of\nperfection as to be beyond the need for using words which require them\nto ask every day for forgiveness of their trespasses. Why should they\nask for such, they say, when their trespasses are non-existent? If they\nare children of the Father they are not so in the same sense as those\nwho conscientiously use the prayer addressed to the Father in heaven. I\nregret that Mr. Ruskin's facile pen has betrayed him into writing some\nwords with reference to our Liturgy which bring him momentarily into\nsympathy with these self-righteous ones who have no need to confess\nthat they want more health of soul.\n\nBut the doctrine of the loving Fatherhood of God, as revealed to us in\nChrist, is one that is unfolding itself more and more clearly to the\nChristian world. If it has unfolded itself to us we may aid in its\nincreased discernment. It is one that involves the acceptance of the\nthought that all human life and every sphere of human endeavour are\nunder Divine patronage. God is in every way our Father. All human\nexcellences whatsoever exist in their fulness and perfection in Him. As\nthey are manifested in us and in our brothers and sisters around us,\nthey are Divine excellences becoming incarnate on the realm of humanity.\n\nChildhood, for instance, as it manifests its sweetness and winsomeness\nin Christian homes, is an outcome of the eternal childhood which dwells\nin God, and which was manifested supremely to the world in the life of\nthe Divine Child at Bethlehem and Nazareth.\n\nSo that the doctrine of the loving Fatherhood of God has sheltering\nbeneath it the thought of the divineness of childhood. Clustering with\nit are many kindred thoughts. There is the divineness of youth, the\nfrankness of Christian boyhood, the tender grace of Christian\ngirlhood,--these are manifestations of the eternal youth abiding in the\nDivine Lord of humanity.\n\nI might speak to you in like manner of the divineness of manhood and of\nwomanhood, and of the divineness of old age. All womanly excellences, as\nwell as all manly virtues, reside in the Divine One. I might speak to\nyou of the divineness of wedded life, the divineness of Christian\nfatherliness and motherliness. The divineness of the student's life and\nof the teacher's life might also be dwelt upon. The divineness of the\nministry of reconciliation, in which ministry all may take part who help\nothers to separate themselves from sin and selfishness and to enter into\nunion with God and His life of love,--this I present to you as a\nfruitful thought. The divineness of all efforts tending towards the\nsolace and comforting of suffering human souls,--that too is one of the\nbeneficent thoughts involved in the great Christian truth that God is\nthe Father of humanity.\n\nBut the same great truth leads us to the discernment of other useful\nthoughts. I might speak of them as connected with the divineness of all\ntoil which has for its object the increase of human knowledge, the\ngathering together of the stored-up lessons of the past, the beautifying\nof the daily life, the refining and spiritualizing of the daily thoughts\nof the great brotherhood and sisterhood. It would thus be quite\njustifiable to speak of the divineness of scientific toil, inasmuch as\nthat has for its aim the unfolding of the thoughts of God, of which all\nappearances of the material world are the outcome and manifestation.\nThus too I might speak of the divineness of the work of those who enable\nus to see the results of the Divine guidance bestowed on the world in\nthe ages past. I might speak of the divineness of the work of the artist\nwho devotes himself to acquiring skill in subtly entangling in the\ncolours he puts on canvas the sentiment underlying the landscape he\nreverently looks at, which to him is a manifestation of a heaven of\nbeauty unseen by heedless eyes. I might also speak of the divineness of\nthe labours of the Christian poet, who presents to the world truth in\nits feminine and most winning aspects.\n\nWhen I should have spoken of all these things they could all be summed\nup into one phrase--the divineness of Humanity. And this is what I have\nfaintly attempted to show necessarily springs up for recognition as the\ndoctrine of the Fatherhood of God presents itself to us in all its\nimpressiveness.\n\nI must hasten to a close. I have said that Mr. Ruskin in what he asks us\nwith reference to our relation to the Church in other countries sounds a\nnote of catholicity. In what I have myself said as to Protestantism I\nhave urged nothing inconsistent with a thorough loyalty to the principle\nof Christian individualism. But individualism in utter revolt against\nauthority leads only to confusion and to a multiplicity of tyrannies.\nIndividualism thrives best under the protection of a generous\nall-embracing authority. Individualism before taking up the attitude of\nrevolt should consider that it, by brave patience and a reverent\nsubmissiveness to all higher influences around it, may contribute\nbeneficently to the authority of the future, and increase the\ngenerousness and catholicity of its sway.\n\nI will further remark that Mr. Ruskin's words as to the Fatherhood of\nGod are also a catholic utterance. For the Fatherhood of God when\npondered upon helps us to see that no sphere of human effort is beyond\nHis control; that His house is one of many mansions of thought and\naffection and loving toil; that His heavenly kingdom is one including\nall domains on which human energies can be directed, over which human\nthoughts can roam, on which human love can lavish itself.\n\n\n\n\n          _From the Rev._ CANON E. H. M'NEILE, _Liverpool_.\n\n\nWhat is the exact question asked in Letter II.?\n\nIs it whether the clergy are or are not teachers of universal science?\n\nIf so, we answer, Yes, we are teachers of the science most universal of\nall, namely, the knowledge of God, which is eternal life: and of the way\nto attain it, which is holiness; and the principles of this science,\nwhich are universal, are not, as in other sciences, discovered by human\nresearch, but are revealed by God.\n\nDoes the question imply that there are points of science on which it is\nof no consequence what opinions a teacher holds? And if so, does it\nfurther mean that all matters of doctrine, such as are defined in the\nThirty-nine Articles, are of this nature?\n\nIf so, I answer that it is only the theories or speculations of\nscientific investigators about which variety of opinion is immaterial,\nnot the essential principles of the science; and that we cannot exclude\nall questions of doctrine from among those principles. I do not know\nwhat is meant by holding different opinions on points of science. About\nthe facts of science there can be no difference of opinion; but there\nmay be about the bearings, and the inferences to be drawn from them.\n\n\nLETTER III\n\nHere is a definite question. My answer is, Yes, but we do not refer to\nthe Thirty-nine Articles for a statement of the Gospel, but rather to\nthe Apostles' Creed, which contains the simplest summary of the facts on\nwhich the Gospel rests. (See 1 Cor. xv. 1, etc.)\n\n\nLETTER IV\n\nHere I answer, No. The Lord's Prayer was not intended to be a statement\nof the Gospel, but the language of those who have accepted it. No doubt\nthe terms of the prayer may be so explained as to bring in a definition\nof the Gospel, working backwards; but a complete explanation would be\nlonger than the Thirty-nine Articles. There seems to be a serious\nconfusion of thought here between the offer of salvation to sinners\nestranged from God, and the utterance towards God of His reconciled\nchildren.\n\n\nLETTER V\n\nThe Lord's Prayer is elementary teaching for Christians, but it is not\nthe first thing to be taught to those outside the family of God. The\ntruth that we have a Father in heaven is a fundamental part of the\nGospel. It is assumed in the Lord's Prayer; and so is the further truth\nthat our Father of His tender love towards us has given His Son to die\nfor us, that we may be delivered from the \"consuming fire\" which sin,\nnot God, has kindled; and thus we have indeed a blessed scheme of pardon\nfor which we are to be thankful to _both_ the Father and the Son. This\nmakes _all_ the clauses of the apostolic blessing intelligible and\nliving.\n\n\nLETTER VI\n\nPage 14: \"For _other_ sins,\" etc. I think this is an incorrect comment.\nThe force of the threat is positive, not comparative. The language of\nthe law is similar towards every sin.\n\nIn what is said about the abomination of hypocrisy in prayer we\ncordially agree. God give us grace to avoid it ourselves, and to warn\nour brethren faithfully against it! But in what follows there is an\nassumption of a power of discipline which the clergy do not possess,\nand which I fear the laity would be most unwilling to concede to them.\nMr. Ruskin seems also to slip into the old error of the servants in the\nparable of the tares.\n\n\nLETTER VII\n\nOn page 21 St. John xiv. 9 is incorrectly cited, and it is difficult to\nknow the exact drift of the writer.\n\nI object to the statement that \"in all His relations to us and commands\nto us,\" etc. (See, _e.g._, St. Matt. xxviii. 18-20.)\n\nAs to His not knowing whether His prayer could be heard, see St. John\nxi. 41, 42.\n\nI think it is incorrect to say that our Lord Himself _used_ the prayer\nHe gave us, at least in its entirety as it stands.\n\nPages 20, 21: Mr. Ruskin seems to me to draw most strongly the very\ncomparison to which he objects. Surely the kingdom of Christ _is_ the\nkingdom of His Father. (Rev. xi. 15, xii. 10; Eph. v. 5.) Does not an\nunwillingness to accept the true divinity of our Lord underlie this\npassage?\n\n\nLETTER VIII\n\nPage 25: There is surely a mistake here. Personal sanctification and\nnational prosperity are very different things. A nation has no existence\nexcept in this world; therefore its prosperity is the chief end to be\naimed at; and this is no doubt promoted by the holiness of its people.\nBut a man has another life hereafter; and comfort and wealth are not the\nend of his being. If granted, they are means to his sanctification, not\n_vice versa_.\n\nIt seems to me that Mr. Ruskin in this Letter writes somewhat\nrecklessly, and that he must have been singularly unfortunate in his\nexperience of preachers if he has never heard a faithful sermon against\ncovetousness, which is the idolatry of our age. On page 26 he seems to\nfall into a great error in supposing that the proclamation of a free\npardon for sin tends to encourage it. If a man is to be delivered from\nthe power of his sins, he must first be delivered from the guilt of\nthem.\n\nNo doubt the grace of God has been abused by some; and St. Paul himself\nfelt that his doctrine was open to such abuse (Rom. vi. 1, 15). It is\nnot, I think, just to attribute the corruption of our great cities to\nthe teaching of the clergy. It is rather to be ascribed to the absence\nof that teaching.\n\n\nLETTER X\n\nWhatever justice there may be (and no doubt there is much) in Mr.\nRuskin's accusations against us clergy, he is surely under an entire\nmisapprehension in the charge which he here makes against our Liturgy.\n\nOur Prayer Book is doubtless constructed for the use of believing\nChristians, and is not fitted for the impenitent; but its adaptation to\nthe needs of the repentant publican and of the advanced Christian is\nmost wonderful. And that a form of prayer may be so adapted is surely\nproved by the Lord's Prayer itself, which Mr. Ruskin says is the _first_\nthing to be taught to all, and which, with all his practice in thinking,\nhe feels that he cannot adequately expound.\n\nSurely the repetition of a confession of unholiness casts no slur upon\nthe efficacy of our prayers for holiness when we recognize that holiness\nis progressive, and that spiritual growth may express itself not merely\nin new words, but in a heartier utterance of the old ones. As to the\nparticular expression, \"there is no health in us,\" it needs either the\nexplanation of St. Paul--\"I know that in me, _that is, in my flesh_,\ndwelleth no good thing,\"--or else to be understood according to the old\nmeaning of \"health,\" viz., \"_saving health_,\" _salvation_, _deliverance_\n(Psalm cxix. 123, Prayer Book; Isa. lviii. 8; Jer. viii. 15).\n\nIt needs further to be remarked that repentance is not only a single\ndefinite act, but a state of mind.\n\nI think that underlying all these comments of Mr. Ruskin on the Lord's\nPrayer is a failure to recognize the truth of man's fall.\n\nHuman nature is a ruin, not to be restored by a rearrangement of its\nfragments. God has provided a remedy, by sending His Son to be the\nfoundation of a new spiritual building; and every man who is to be built\nupon that foundation must himself become a new creature by the\noperation of the Holy Ghost. All efforts to improve humanity in the\nmass, without the renewal of each separate soul, must fail; and no doubt\nthe clergy often fall into this mistake.\n\nThe Lord's Prayer is not the prayer of all mankind as they are by\nnature. It is a prayer to the possession of which they are brought by\nregeneration, and to the enjoyment by conversion.\n\n                                                      E. H. M'NEILE.\n\n\n\n\n                     _From the Rev._ P. T. OUVRY.\n\n\nOn the meaning of usury, I would add a few words. I start with this\nproposition. There is nothing contrary to the will of God for one free\nman to buy from another free man anything he wants. I have two\nhouses,--one I live in, one I let. My tenant pays the market rent of\nhouses to me, and so both parties are benefited. I have two thousand\npounds. I have no capacity, or opportunity, or desire to use more than\none thousand pounds in trade on my own account. My neighbour has energy\nand activity to use more money than he has in trade. He gladly offers me\nfive per cent. for my spare thousand pounds. I willingly lend it on\nthose terms. He makes ten per cent. by using it. He gives me five pounds\nand has five pounds for himself. If this be usury, it is lawful and\nright.\n\nA number of small cultivators of land have no capital. A money-lender\nsupplies what they require on condition that they sell their crops to\nhim at a price which he is able to fix. From the circumstances of the\ncase the money-lender makes an enormous profit. The cultivator has\nbarely the necessaries of life. This is usury, in the bad sense of the\nterm, but is more correctly called oppression or extortion.\n\nAgain, a man lends money to ignorant inexperienced youths, on promise of\nrepayment when they come of age. This, too, is oppression or extortion.\n\nSimilar oppression is witnessed when bad houses are let to poor people\nat high rents.\n\nIt is not, then, that usury, in the sense of oppression or extortion, is\ninherent in money-lending; but it belongs equally to every transaction\nbetween man and man, where any unrighteous dealing is practised.\n\n                                                        P. T. OUVRY.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   GRANGE-OVER-SANDS,\n                                                  _October 1st, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I protested strongly yesterday against our remarks,\nmade on the spur of the moment, being printed and submitted to Mr.\nRuskin's criticism, and what I said then I feel as strongly still.\n\nBut I have no objection to send, as a comment on his Letters, a volume\nof sermons which I published last year, because I think that, in that\nupon the hallowing of God's name, I have not taken the restricted view\nwhich Mr. Ruskin accused the clergy of taking, and I think also that\n(except in the sermon upon the doctrine of the Trinity, which was\nwritten before the others, and is tinged with the prejudices of early\ntraining), I have set forth God the Father as a Being of infinite,\ntender, fatherly love.\n\nSo far as snails may follow in the footsteps of greyhounds, and bats\nlook in the same direction as eagles, I think some of us clergymen are\ngetting our feet and our eyes into the same track as Mr. Ruskin's.\n\nIt seems to me that all of us who think upon religious matters, laity or\nclergy, whether men of genius or commonplace people, are feeling our way\nat present to something better and truer. Men like Mr. Ruskin, like\nsteamships, dart on to their destination; and feebler minds, like\nsailing vessels, are a good deal at the mercy of the _popularis aura_\nand the winds of doctrine, but both are on their way to the same point.\n\nI send the volume by the same post as this letter.\n\n                                        Yours very faithfully,\n                                                         H. R. S.\n\n\n\n\n            _From the Rev._ A. G. K. SIMPSON, _Brighton_.\n\n\nWe are convinced that the love of God is the originating cause of all\nHis dealings with mankind, and are glad to meet him on the broad\nplatform of \"Our Father which art in heaven;\" only premising that it is\na platform not new to us, but on which we have long taken our stand.\n\nBut beyond these somewhat general statements of our faith, I doubt\nwhether it would be possible to put Divine truth into such plain words\nas would meet with general acceptance. In proportion to the _minuteness_\nwould be the _disagreement_. To take one great truth (perhaps the\ngreatest of all), would it be possible to put forth a plain and simple\nstatement, such as all, or the majority, would receive, of the\nAtonement? Such a mind as Mr. Ruskin's would not be content with the\nforensic view more popular some years ago than now. Wiser, it seems to\nme, it is to accept some such teaching as that of Coleridge in \"Aids to\nReflection.\" \"The mysterious act, the operative cause,\" he says, \"is\ntranscendent.\" \"_Factum est_,\" and beyond the information contained in\nthe enunciation of the fact, it can be characterized only by its\nconsequences. It is these consequences which (according to Coleridge)\nare illustrated by the four metaphors:--\n\n    1. Sin-offering or expiation.\n\n    2. Reconciliation.\n\n    3. Redemption.\n\n    4. Payment of a debt.\n\nNow, would not a plain, a simple statement, be apt to press the metaphor\ntoo far, and attempt to put into words one aspect of the truth as though\nit were the whole? Such a reverent mind as Bishop Butler's reproved the\ncuriosity which sought to find out the manner of the atonement. \"I do\nnot find,\" he said, \"that it is declared in the Scriptures.\" And yet the\natonement is only _one_, though perhaps the _chief_, of the many points\nof which a true and simple statement must take cognizance. It would be\ncomparatively easy for the private clergyman to put into words his\nthoughts on this subject or that, but then he would be continually\nliable to have it urged against him that he had not sufficiently\nconsidered some given point--had not walked round it, and seen it in all\nits bearings; that his view was inadequate and incomplete; and, being\nfallible and human, some of the objections would doubtless be true, and\nthe simple and plain statement be, in that respect at least,\nmisguiding.\n\n\n\n\n             _From the Rev._ G. W. WALL, _Bickerstaffe_.\n\n\n                              LETTER II\n\nThis Letter professes to contain an \"exact question,\" which is somewhat\nsingularly inexactly put. In its strict grammatical form it asks for a\ndefinition of the members of a Clerical Council, and their business as\nsuch. This \"exact question\" is in fact an illustration of the fallacy of\nasking two questions in one, though a question demanding to be answered\nwith \"mathematical\" precision should have been set with mathematical\naccuracy. But here at the outset a protest must be entered against being\ncalled upon to answer a question set in ambiguous words and misleading\nphrases, and based upon assumptions which those questioned would reject.\nIt is impossible to deal with a so-called \"axiomatic\" question which\ninstantly passes into a cloudy rhetorical illustration.\n\n\"The attached servants of a particular State.\" Does that expression\nmean, \"England, with all thy faults, I love thee still\"? or, is it used\nin the same sense as \"attached to the staff\"? But are there many of the\nclergy who would say, \"I am an attached and salaried servant of the\nState, and nothing more?\" Are there many who would allow that they were\n\"salaried\" by the State at all? Are there many who would grant that they\nhad been \"examined\" and \"numbered\" and admitted into a \"body of\ntrustworthy persons\" either by the State or by its agents? And yet all\nthese previous questions must be answered before we can consider at all\nthe \"axiomatic\" question which the clergy are \"earnestly called upon\" to\nsolve. The question set down for solution implies some such inquiries as\nthese: Is not the Church of England merely a Department of the State of\nEngland? Does not a clergyman belong to the Ecclesiastical Service just\nas an _employe_ of the Treasury, or the Home Office, or the Post Office,\nbelongs to the Civil Service? For example, the authorities at Chamouni\nexamine and approve of certain men as guides for mountaineering: does\nnot the English State similarly examine and approve of certain men as\nguides for England and the English \"in the way known of all good men\nthat leadeth unto life\"? A most fallacious employment of a \"universal\"\nfor a \"particular,\" for either the clergy must be excluded from the\nnumber of \"all good men,\" or the assertion that all good men agree in\ntheir knowledge falls to the ground, seeing that in the fourth Letter\nthe clergy are charged with not having \"determined quite clearly\" what\nthe way that leadeth unto life may be.\n\nBut taking this Alpine illustration for what it may be worth, we may\nask, \"What does it mean?\" Is it not intended to exalt practical\nquestions, and to depreciate all doctrine and dogma and theological\nopinion, either from its liability on the one hand to be narrow or\ninsular, \"Chamounist or Grindelwaldist,\" or on the other from its\ntendency to be vague and transcendental, dealing with \"celestial\nmountains\" and unfathomable \"crevasses\"? Will it not admit of some such\nparaphrase as this, \"Your teachings as to Episcopacy or\nCongregationalism, seven sacraments or two, and the like, are mere local\nopinions, and so away with them; your doctrines as to the Holy Trinity,\nthe Incarnation, and the like, are mere transcendentalism, and so away\nwith them also,--\n\n    'For modes of faith let zealous bigots fight,\n     He can't be wrong whose life is in the right.'\"\n\nStill it may be allowable to hint that the qualifications of a \"guide\"\nas laid down in this Letter are somewhat peculiar. It might have been\nsupposed by a plain man that a Chamounist guide was expected to know at\nleast something as to the localities of the Mer de Glace, the Jardin, or\nthe Grand Mulets, but he is seemingly to rise superior to any\n\"Chamounist opinions on geography,\" and to be prepared to rely only upon\na universal science of locality and athletics, a reliance which has been\nthe fruitful cause of mountaineering fatalities.\n\nThe reply which most Clerical Councils would return respecting the\n\"axiomatic\" question of this Letter would probably be, \"We cannot answer\na fallacy; we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.\"\n\n\n                              LETTER III\n\nA second question is now propounded respecting the Christian Gospel.\n\"The Gospel of Christ\" is spoken of in a connection which seems to\nindicate that Luther and Augustine were equally, in the writer's\nopinion, the setters forth of a \"gospel.\" Is this an unintentional\ndisclosure of his estimate of our blessed Lord,--\"Rabbi, we know that\nThou art a teacher come from God,\" and no more than that? For the eighth\nLetter contains a sneer at the Gospel that He is our Advocate with the\nFather, as one to mend the world with. A confused question follows,\nwhich may mean either, that it is in the first place desirable that the\nGospel should be put into plain words, or, that the first principles of\nthe Gospel should be put into plain words. Its probable meaning is, \"Is\nit not desirable that religious teaching should be divested of any\nmysteries?\" The extraordinary supposition that the Gospel is intended to\nbe set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles can only be equalled by a\nsupposition that a treatise on military tactics is embodied in the\nArticles of War. Perhaps even some of the axiomatic principles of\nmathematics, such as that \"a point is that which hath no parts,\" though\nlaid down in \"plain words and short terms,\" might sorely perplex \"simple\npersons.\"\n\nBut several fallacies underlie this second question. The fallacy that\nthe moral principles of our nature are necessarily connected with the\nextent of our intellectual capacities; the fallacy that Divine Truths\ncan be adequately expressed through the inaccurate instrument of human\nlanguage; the fallacy that deep things are necessarily made plain by the\nuse of plain words; the fallacy that everything upon which we act is\nnecessarily understood. A plain man does not refuse to use the telegraph\nbecause he may know nothing about the Correlation of Force, or a simple\nperson to travel because \"space\" is beyond his comprehension. If the\nGospel is, as St. Paul says it is, a revelation of the power of God unto\nsalvation, an amount of mystery must necessarily surround it. Since it\nis impossible that the Divine Nature should be to us other than a\nmystery, a revelation of Divine purposes such as is the Gospel as\nunderstood by the Church, must remain mysterious also. Only upon the\nsupposition that our Lord was the teacher of a high but still human\nmorality can we remove all mystery from the Christian Gospel, if it\nstill deserve the name. Such teaching might be conveyed in plain words\nand short terms, but it would cease to be a Gospel which angels desire\nto look into, and could hardly be described as the \"manifold wisdom of\nGod,\" or be the story of the \"love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.\"\n\nThe Gospel, as the Church understands it, rests upon the revealed fact\nof the Incarnation, or the union of the Infinite with the Finite, that\nHe who is very God of very God became man in order to introduce the\nDivine possibility of manhood being made to partake of the Divine\nnature; and so long as the triumphal chant ascends that \"the Catholic\nFaith is this,\" so long will the Church's Faith be veiled indeed with\nmystery, and so long will she continue to gather within her bounds the\nhumble and holy men of heart, who are content to say, \"I cannot\nunderstand: I love.\" That \"God sent His only-begotten Son into the\nworld that we might live through Him\" are short and plain words enough,\nand Gospel enough, surely, but the depth of their meaning is\nunfathomable by even the most cultivated understanding, to which the\npower of God and the wisdom of God may appear to be but foolishness.\n\n\n                              LETTER IX\n\nThis Letter, after endorsing the expressions of the preceding one, deals\napparently with Capital and Labour. The clergy, if not required to\ndivide the inheritance among their brethren, or to actually serve\ntables, are, taking \"Property is theft\" as their text, to resolutely and\ndaily inquire how the dinners of their flock are earned. The gist of the\nLetter seems to be that the worker earns and the capitalist steals his\ndinner. It is really possible that the clergy do constantly speak the\ntruth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth's sake,\neven though they may not subscribe to all the articles of some peculiar\nschemes of social science, nor hold some singular doctrines as to\npolitical economy. Doubtless were they to assimilate their conduct to\nthat of an injudicious district-visitor, they would have to take a new\nview of \"life and its sacraments,\" whatever this expression may mean.\n\nIt would seem as if the writer had yet to learn that a Christian Church\nmay exist teaching the most dogmatic definitions of doctrine, binding,\neven in this respect, burdens on men's shoulders grievous to be borne,\nwhile its members may be patterns of self-denial in \"offices of temporal\nministry to the poor.\" He does not appear to regard with favour the\n\"Evangelistic sect of the English Church;\" if this is intended for the\n\"Evangelical\" sect, Charles Kingsley could say, in a certain place, of\nits founders, \"They were inspired by a strange new instinct that God had\nbidden them 'to clothe the hungry and feed the naked.'\" Yet these men\nthought that \"justification by faith only\" was the Gospel they were \"to\ncarry to mend the world with, forsooth.\"\n\n\n                              LETTER XI\n\nThis concluding Letter calls but for slight remark,--of many portions we\nfeel _O si sic omnia_! That there is much sorrowful truth underlying the\nunmeasured denunciations which have gone before few will care to deny.\nFew there are who will not pray to be kept from the evils which the\nwriter discerns, and against which he inveighs. Such will be the first\nto regret that the Letters, as they read them, seem to fall short of the\nfulness of the Catholic Faith. \"The holy teachers of all nations:\" was\nour blessed Lord but one of them? There is nothing in the Letters to\nshow that \"the full force and meaning\" of Gospel teaching is concerned\nwith anything beyond wealth, and comfort, and national prosperity, and\ndomestic peace. Preaching the acceptable year of the Lord is something\nmore surely than an invective against usury.\n\nWe read that in old times Bezaleel was filled for his own work with the\nSpirit of God, but we do not read that he aspired to become a religious\nteacher; and when we are told by one eminent in Art that a Church\nnineteen centuries old has yet to learn that the \"will of the Lord\" is a\nsanctification which brings comfort and wealth in its train, we think of\na Moses who esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the\ntreasures of Egypt, and then of a Paul who counted all things but loss\nfor the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord.\n\n                                                        G. W. WALL.\n\n\n\n\n                          _From_ OXONIENSIS.\n\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--Many thanks for the pamphlet. You ask me to send you\nany remarks I may have to make on the Letters, and I gather from your\nnote at the beginning of the Letters as they now stand, that you intend\nmaking use of any remarks sent you that may commend themselves to your\njudgment. I am not vain enough to think mine of any special value. I\nwill, however, write you my feelings about them, encouraged to do so by\nyour statement in the note to the pamphlet, that the use made of\nremarks sent you will be anonymous, if it is so desired.\n\nFirst, as regards the general tone of the Letters. You tell me that the\nmajority of the comments you have received have been hostile--people not\ntaking their medicine without making wry faces. I am only surprised at\nthe gentleness of the Letters, and I believe that if anyone will take\nthe trouble to put down for himself on paper the sum of their contents,\nhe will find it as difficult to gainsay as for careless readers it is\neasy to cavil at. On the other hand, the \"hostile spirit\" is readily\nprovoked by the way in which some of the teaching of the Letters is put.\nPassages like the sixth paragraph in Letter X. appear an objectionable\njoke to some--perhaps to most--people; they do not see that it is really\na serious jest, so put for brevity's sake, and that Ruskin might have\nput the same note to it as he has put to a passage in the \"Crown of Wild\nOlive,\" p. 85, 8vo ed.: \"Quite serious all this, though it reads like\njest.\" I remember once asking Ruskin if his apparent joking in some\nOxford lectures was not likely to lessen his influence, and he at once\nsaid to me, \"Remember that most of my apparent jokes are serious,\n_ghastly_ jests.\" I think he would be less often misunderstood, if this\nwere more often understood.\n\nYour own preface marks the two main points in the spirit of the Letters.\nThey are sternly practical, and at the same time their standard is one\nof an ideal perfection. People don't see that because the goal cannot be\nreached, the road towards it can still be trodden, and therefore they\napply to the road an epithet which applies only to the goal. In this\nrespect Ruskin's teaching might be mottoed with George Herbert's--\n\n                    \"Who aimeth at the sky\n    Shoots higher much than he that means a tree.\"\n\nIn fact, Ruskin's teaching, like that of the Bible, is not unpractical,\nbut _unpractised_.\n\nI will now take the Letters in detail. The first four of them are merely\nintroductory to the main matter of the eleven. In these first five two\nquestions are asked--\n\n1. What is a clergyman of the Church of England? And to this the\nsuggested answer is (whom does it offend?), \"A teacher of the Gospel of\nChrist to all nations.\"\n\n2. What is the teaching of the Gospel he is to teach? What is that\nteaching, clearly and simply put?\n\nThen Letter IV. suggests that the Lord's Prayer may be taken as\ncontaining the cardinal points of that teaching, containing not all that\nis to be learnt, but what all have to learn. And so we come to Letter\nV.; and I tried, in reading the Letters for myself, to do for them what\nLetter III. asks clergymen to do for the Gospel.\n\nLetter V.--A clergyman's first duty is to make the Lord's Prayer clear\nand living to his people. This is what Ruskin has elsewhere insisted on\nin other matters--\"clear,\" know your duty and your belief; \"living,\"\nrealize it in your life--realize it \"as a Captain's order, to be obeyed\"\n(\"Crown of Wild Olive,\" Introduction, p. 13. The whole of this\nIntroduction reads well with these Letters). Then the first clause of\nthe Prayer is set forth as putting before us God as a loving Father.\n\nLetter VI.--\"Hallowed be Thy name.\" How do we fulfil the hope in our\nlives? How do we betray it? Not in swearing only, as we are apt to\nthink, but in the blasphemy of false and hypocritical prayer to, and\npraise of, _preaching about_ God (last paragraph of the Letter).\nClergymen, it is added, can prevent openly wicked men from being in\ntheir congregations (they are supposed to do so: Rubrics 2 and 3 before\nthe Holy Communion Service); they can not only compel the wicked poor\ninto, but expel the wicked rich out of, churches. God sees the heart:\nthe clergy should look to the hands and lips.\n\nLetter VII.--\"Thy kingdom come:\"--not an allusion to the second coming\nof the Son, which we cannot hasten, but to the coming of the kingdom of\nGod the Father, which we can. This is again illustrated by the \"Crown of\nWild Olive\" (I daresay it is by others of Ruskin's books, but it is\nconvenient to refer chiefly to one, and that the one which contains what\nhe calls his most biblical lecture), p. 56: \"Observe it is a kingdom\nthat is to come to us; we are not to go to it. Also it is not to be a\nkingdom of the dead, but of the living. Also it is not to come all at\nonce, but quietly ... without observation. _Also it is not to come\noutside of us, but in our hearts: 'the kingdom of God is within you.'_\"\nThis is the sense in which we can hasten _it_.\n\nLetter VIII. begins with a hit at the pleasure priests take in their\npriesthood's dignity, and at their avoidance of its unpleasant duties,\nand at their sometimes wearisome preaching.\n\nHave they ever taught \"Thy will be done,\" as it should be--1. In our own\nsanctification; 2. In understanding that will, and doing it, and\nstriving to get it done (knowing their duty and doing it, and it alone)?\n\nThe remarks about the mediatorial (absolving-from-punishment) and the\npastoral (purging-from-sin) functions of a \"pastor,\" seem to me quite\nadmirable.\n\nThe end of the Letter is subsequently amplified, Letter X.\n\nLetter IX.--\"Give us this day our daily bread.\" Yes, but we must work\nfor it. \"The man that will not work, neither shall he eat.\" A cardinal\npoint with Ruskin: \"But if you do\" (_i.e._, wish for God's kingdom),\n\"you must do more than pray for it, you must work for it\" (\"Crown of\nWild Olive,\" p. 56).\n\nAnd the clergyman has to teach (Letter IX. goes on) what that work is\nand how it is to be done; and the life, to which their teaching should\nlead, is one \"moderate in its self-indulgence, wide in its offices of\ntemporal ministry to the poor,\" in the absence of which, prayer for\nharvest is mere blasphemy. For the spiritual bread is the first thing,\nand a clergyman's first message, \"Choose ye this day whom ye will\nserve.\"\n\nLetter X.--\"Forgive us our trespasses.\" The explanation of trespasses,\nand substitution of _debts_ for it, is admirable (\"Dimitte nobis\n_debita_ nostra\"), and admirably illustrated by the sins of omission\nbeing condemned in Christ's judgment,--\"I was hungry, and ye gave Me no\nmeat.\"\n\nThe remarks on the \"pleasantness\" of the English liturgy recall those on\nthe avoidance of unpleasantness by the English clergy in Letter VIII.\n\nI pass over the notes on the advantage of \"forms of prayer,\" and come to\nthe end of Letter X. and Letter XI., which go together, and say\npractically, Pray honestly or not at all. \"Faithful prayer implies\nalways correlative exertions;\" \"dishonest prayer is blasphemy of the\nworst kind.\"\n\n\"Crown of Wild Olive,\" p. 55, again: \"Everybody in this room has been\ntaught to pray daily, 'Thy kingdom come.' Now, if we hear a man swear in\nthe streets, we think it very wrong, and say he 'takes God's name in\nvain.' But there is a twenty times worse way of taking His name in vain\nthan that. It is to _ask God for what we don't want_. He doesn't like\nthat sort of prayer. If you don't want a thing, don't ask for it; such\nasking is the worst mockery of your King you can insult Him with; the\nsoldiers striking Him on the head was nothing to that. If you do not\nwish for His kingdom, don't pray for it.\"\n\nIn fact, prayer is worse than useless if not sincere, and it is\ninsincere if not carried out in the life of the \"pray-er.\" Thus, \"One\nhour in the execution of justice is worth seventy years of (insincere)\nprayer\" (Mahometan maxim, \"Crown of Wild Olive,\" p. 49).\n\nI must stop. Only the fifth paragraph in Letter XI., about parents\nlooking for \"opportunities\" for their children, is exactly parallel\nwith \"Sesame and Lilies,\" 8vo edition, p. 2 (Sub. 1, Sec. 2), which might\nbe added in an illustrative note. I must apologize for my long and\nrambling letter, but if it is of the least service to you I shall be\ncontent. I feel how inadequate it is to what I meant it to be, only I\nhave no time just now to do more than write, as this letter is\nwritten--at the point of the pen.\n\n                                                        OXONIENSIS.\n\n\n\n\n                             LETTERS FROM\n\n                        BRANTWOOD-ON-THE-LAKE\n\n                                TO THE\n\n                   VICARAGE OF BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS\n\n\n\n\n                               PREFACE\n\n\nSome apology will naturally be expected for setting the following\nletters before the searching eye of a critical and possibly censorious\npublic. I can only plead that the suggestion of their publication did\nnot emanate from myself (for the idea of making these letters public\nproperty had never once in fifteen years crossed my mind), but was made\nto me by friends to whom it appeared that much in these letters is\nstrongly characteristic of Mr. Ruskin, and illustrates (much too\nindulgently, alas!) the estimate he is good enough to form of a\ncorrespondent who does not to this day clearly understand to what happy\ncircumstance he is indebted for so fortunate a partiality. At the same\ntime it must be confessed that _Laudari a viro laudato_ is a harmless\nambition for the possession of a stimulus which is good for every soul\nof man.\n\nI will say no more upon that subject, lest my self-depreciation should\nbe set down to vanity. Nevertheless it has always been a source of\ninnocent pleasure to me that I have been enabled to bring my ship\nwithout damage through so perilous a voyage to port in a safe and\nhonourable harbourage.\n\nThe matters discussed in the following letters range only over a narrow\nfield; but it will be found that they present a truly life-like picture\nof the writer with his shrewd common-sense and deeper wisdom, enlivened\nin no small measure by a quick impulsiveness which is sometimes rather\nstartling. Some of his sudden sallies serve the purpose of the\ncondiments, which displeasing if taken alone, give piquancy to our\nordinary food.\n\n                                                       F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\n\n\n                                  1.\n\n\n                                                     _July 8th, 1879._\n\nMY DEAR MR. MALLESON,--You must make no public announcement of any paper\nby me. I am not able to count on my powers of mind for an hour; and will\nabsolutely take no responsibility. What I do send you--if anything--will\nbe in the form of a series of short letters to yourself, of which you\nhave already the first: This the second for the sake of continuing the\norder unbroken contains the next following question which I should like\nto ask. If when the sequence of letters is in your possession you like\nto read any part or parts of them as a subject of discussion at your\nafternoon meeting, I shall be glad and grateful.\n\n                                    Ever faithfully yours,\n                                                     J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                  2.\n\n\n                             [_Undated._]\n\nI am so ashamed of keeping R.'s book--but it's impossible for me to look\nat it properly till I have done my lecture, so much must be left undone\nof it anyhow * * *\n\nYes--you were glad to find we were at one in many thoughts. So was I.\nBut we are not yet, you know, at one in our _sight_ of this world and\nthe dark ways of it. I hope to have you for a St. George's soldier one\nday.\n\n\n\n\n                                  3.\n\n\n                                                    _23rd July, 1879._\n\nThanks for your note and your kind feelings. But you ought to know more\nabout me.\n\nI profess to be a teacher; as you profess also.\n\nBut we teach on totally different methods.\n\n_You_ believe what you wish to believe; teach that it is wicked to doubt\nit, and remain at rest and in much self-satisfaction.\n\n_I_ believe what I find to be true, whether I like or dislike it. And I\nteach other people that the chief of all wickednesses is to tell lies in\nGod's service, and to disgrace our Master and destroy His sheep as\n_involuntary_ Wolves.\n\n_I_, therefore, am in perpetual effort to learn and discern--in\nperpetual Unrest and Dissatisfaction with myself.\n\nBut it would simply require you to do twenty years of such hard work as\nI have done before you could in any true sense speak a word to me on\nsuch matters. You could not use a word in my sense. It would always mean\nto you something different.\n\nFor instance--one of my quite bye works in learning my business of a\nteacher--was to read the New Testament through in the earliest Greek MS.\n(eleventh century) which I could get hold of. I examined every syllable\nof it and have more notes of various readings and on the real meanings\nof perverted passages than you would get through in a year's work. But I\nshould require you to do the same work before I would discuss a text\nwith you. From that and such work in all kinds I have formed opinions\nwhich you could no more move than you could Coniston Old Man. They may\nbe wrong, God knows; I _trust_ in them infinitely less than you do in\nthose which you have formed simply by refusing to examine--or to\nthink--or to know what is doing in the world about you; but you cannot\nstir them.\n\nI very very rarely make presents of my books. If people are inclined to\nlearn from them, I say to them as a physician would--Pay me my fee--you\nwill not obey me if I give you advice for nothing.\n\nBut I should like a kind neighbour like you to know something about me,\nand I have therefore desired my publisher to send you one[21] of my many\nbooks which, after doing the work that I have done, you would have to\nread before you could really use words in my meaning.\n\n     [21] Crown of Wild Olive.--ED.\n\n     If you will read the introduction carefully, and especially dwell\n     on the 10th to 15th lines of the 15th page, you will at least know\n     me a little better than to think I believe in my own\n     resurrection--but not in Christ's: and if you look to the final\n     essay on War, you may find some things in it which will be of\n     interest to you in your own[22] work.\n\n     [22] Translating some of Erckmann-Chatrian's.--ED.\n\n\n\n\n                                  4.\n\n\n                                        VENICE, _8th September, 1879_.\n\n* * * * There is nothing whatever said as far as I remember in the July\n'Fors,' about \"people's surrendering their judgment.\" A colonel does not\nsurrender his judgment in obeying his general, nor a soldier in obeying\nhis colonel. But there can be no army where they _act_ on their own\njudgments.\n\nThe Society of Jesuits is a splendid proof of the power of obedience,\nbut its curse is falsehood. When the Master of St. George's Company bids\nyou lie, it will be time to compare our discipline to the Jesuits. We\nare their precise opposites--fiercely and at all costs frank, while they\nare calmly and for all interests lying.\n\n\n\n\n                                  5.\n\n\n                                                  BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,\n                                                   _July 30th, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I fear I have kept the proofs too long, but I wanted\nto look atain. I am confirmed in my impression that the book will do\nmuch good.[23] But I think it would have done more if you had written\nthe lives of two or three of your parishioners. Such an answer would I\ngive to a painter who sent to me a picture of the Last Supper. \"You had\nbetter, it seems to me, have painted a Harvest Home.\" I am gravely\ndoubtful of the possibility, in these days, of writing or painting on\nsuch subjects, advisedly and securely.\n\n                                  Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                          J. R.\n\n     [23] Life and Work of Jesus Christ. Ward & Lock.--ED.\n\n\n\n\n                                  6.\n\n\n                                                    _July 31st, 1879._\n\nI have received this week the two most astonishing letters I ever yet\nreceived in my life. And one of them is yours, read this\nmorning--telling me--that you don't think you could write the life of an\nold woman! Yet you think you _can_ write the life of Christ!\n\nIf you can at all explain this state of your mind to me I will tell you\nmore distinctly what I think of the piece I saw. But I don't think you\nwill communicate the thought to your publisher; and I never meant you to\nuse my former one in that manner.\n\nMind a publisher thinks only of money, and I know nothing of\nsaleableness. The pause in my other letters is one of pure astonishment\nat you; which at present occupies all the time I have to spare on the\nsubject, and has culminated to-day.\n\nI am so puzzled. I can scarcely think of anything else till you tell me\nwhat you mean in the bit about being \"called late.\"\n\nHave you done no work in the vineyard 'yet' then?\n\n\n\n\n                                  7.\n\n\n                                                   _August 2nd, 1879._\n\nI am still simply speechless with astonishment at you. It is no question\nof your right to the best I can say; it is all at your command. But for\nthe present my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth. I can only tell you\nwith all the strength I have to read and understand and believe 2 Esdras\niv. 2, 20, 21.[24]\n\n     [24] Thy heart hath gone too far in this world, and thinkest thou\n     to comprehend the way of the most High? Then answered he me, and\n     said, Thou hast given a right judgment, but why judgest thou not\n     thyself also. For like as the ground is given unto the wood, and\n     the sea to his floods: even so they that dwell upon the earth may\n     understand nothing, but that which is upon the earth: and he only\n     that dwelleth above the heavens, may understand the things that are\n     above the height of the heavens.\n\n\n\n\n                                  8.\n\n\n                                                   _August 4th, 1879._\n\nIt is just because you undertook the task so _happily_, that I should\nhave thought you unfit to write the life of a Man of Sorrows, even had\nhe been a Man only. But your last letter, remember, claims inspiration\nfor your guide, and recognizes a personal call at sixty, as if the Call\nto the ministry had been none, and the receiving the Holy Ghost by\nimposition of hands an empty ceremony.\n\nIn writing the life of a parishioner and in remitting or retaining their\nsins you would in my conception have been fulfilling your appointed\nwork. But I cannot conceive the claim to be a fit Evangelist without\nmore proof of miraculous appointment than you are conscious of. I know\nyou to be conscientious, yes--but I think the judicial doom of this\ncountry is to have conscience alike of its Priests and Prophets\n_hardened_. Why should any letter of mine make you anxious if you had\nindeed conscience of inspiration?\n\n                                  Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                          J. R.\n\n\n\n\n                                  9.\n\n\n                                                         _August 7th._\n\nI hope to be able soon now to resume the series of letters; but it seems\nto me there is no need whatever of more than three or four more\nrespecting the last clauses of the Lord's Prayer. Those in your hands\ncontain questions enough, if seriously entertained, to occupy twenty\nmeetings; and I could only hope that some one of them might be carefully\ntaken up by your friends. I think, however, in case of the clerical\nfeeling being too strong, that I must ask you, if you print letters at\nall, to print them without omission. And if you do not print them, to\nreturn them to me for my own expansion and arrangement.\n\n                                  Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                          J. R.\n\n\n\n\n                                 10.\n\n\n                                                         _August 9th._\n\nI have got to work on the letters again; it would make me nervous to\nthink of all these plans of yours. Suppose you leave all that till you\nsee what the first debate comes to?[25] And in the meantime I'll finish\nas best I can.\n\n     [25] My clerical friends and brethren must not be displeased with\n     me if I here mention the fact that at the meeting of twenty-three\n     clergy where I _proposed_ to read Mr. Ruskin's letters to them, I\n     was only authorized to do so by a majority of two. I can scarcely\n     describe the dismay and consternation with which the letters\n     themselves were received,--though of course not universally, in\n     another meeting of the same number.\n\n\n\n\n                                 11.\n\n\n                                                      _September 2nd._\n\nThat there are only a hundred copies in that form,[26] is just a reason\nwhy the book should be in your library, where it will be enjoyed and\nuseful; and not in mine, where it would not be opened once in a\ntwelvemonth. It is one of the advantages of a small house (and it has\nmany) that one is compelled to consider of all one's books whether they\nare in use or not.\n\n     [26] Grosart, \"Poems of Christopher Harvey.\"\n\nI yesterday ordered a 'Fors' to be sent you containing in its close the\nmost important piece of a religious character in the book--this I hope\nyou will also allow to stay on your shelves. The two that I sent with\nthis note contain so much that is saucy that I only send them in case\nyou want to look at the challenge referred to in the Letters to the\nBishop of Manchester, see October, 1877, pp. 322, 323, and January 1875,\np. 11. You can keep as long as you like, but please take care of them,\nas my index is not yet done. The next letter will come before the week\nend, but it's a difficult one.\n\n\n\n\n                                 12.\n\n\n                                                     THE VICARAGE,\n                                                 BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS,\n                                                _September 4th, 1879_.\n\nMY DEAR MR. RUSKIN,--These parish engagements having been discharged\nwhich have taken up my time very closely since I came back from\nBrighton, I am returning to your letters, and I think you would like to\nknow what I am doing. I am copying them down, first, as I can read them\naloud better in my own handwriting, and secondly, because I shall not\nplace the originals in the printer's hands.\n\nThen many thoughts arise in my mind as I re-peruse them, and I must\nneeds (and I think I am allowed) give expression to my thoughts. Hence\neach letter is followed by my own comments or reflections upon it. But\nthis need not make you feel nervous. On the whole there is much\nagreement between your modes of thought on religious subjects and my\nown.\n\nIf this is thought a piece of cool assurance, I may reply in the words\nor sense of Euclid, That similar triangles may have the most various\nareas. I am not equal to you, but I claim to be similar. These comments\nI sometimes think I ought to show to you before publication; but perhaps\nyou will agree with me that if I am fit to be trusted at all, I had\nbetter be left unconstrained. I shall certainly come to you first, if I\nfind myself seriously at variance with you, which has not happened yet\nas far as the first clause of the Lord's Prayer. Then it is likely that\nI shall read the letters before two or three Clerical Societies,[27]\nincluding my own, the Furness.\n\n     [27] At Liverpool and Brighton.\n\nThe opinions delivered by those clergy it will be my duty, and I hope it\nwill be my pleasure, to collect and to record. I propose also to invite\nthe clergy who have not time or opportunity to speak in the meeting to\nwrite to me, and I will use my best judgment in selecting from their\ncorrespondence all that seems worth preserving.\n\nI am very sensible that this is a most delicate and responsible task\nthat is laid upon me, and I wonder to find myself so engaged. It will\nneed tact, discretion, and kindness of heart, and I trust I may be\nendued with the necessary qualifications to a much larger extent than I\nthink I naturally possess.\n\nI find no small comfort at the foot of the first page of the Preface to\n\"Sesame and Lilies.\" There I feel I am at one with you.\n\n                                  Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                 F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\n\n\n                                 13.\n\n\n                                     BRANTWOOD, _September 5th, 1879_.\n\nI shall be delighted to have the comments, though it will be well first\nto have the series of letters done--the last but one is coming\nto-morrow. I have only written them in the sense of your sympathy in\nmost points, and am sure you will make the best possible use of them.\n\n\n\n\n                                 14.\n\n\n                                                _September 7th, 1879._\n\nIt is rather comic that your first reply to my challenge concerning\nusury should be a prospectus of a Company[28] wishing to make 5 per\ncent. out of Broughton poor men's ignorance. You couldn't have sent me a\nproject I should have regarded with more abomination.\n\n     [28] A projected Public Hall.\n\n\n\n\n                                 15.\n\n\n                                                _September 9th, 1879._\n\nThere is absolutely no debate possible as to what usury is any more\nthan what adultery is. The Church has only been polluted by the\nindulgence of it since the 16th century. Usury is _any kind whatever_ of\ninterest on loan, and it is the essential modern form of Satan.\n\nI send you an old book full of sound and eternal teaching on this\nmatter--please take care of it as a friend's gift, and one I would not\nlose for its weight in gold. Please read first the Sermon by Bishop\nJewel, page 14, and then the rest at your pleasure or your leisure.\n\n_No halls are wanted_, they are all rich men's excuses for destroying\nthe home life of England.\n\nThe public library should be at the village school (and I could put ten\nthousand pounds' worth of books into a single cupboard), and all that is\ndone for education should be pure Gift. Do you think that this rich\nEngland, which spends fifty millions a year in drink and gunpowder,\ncan't educate her poor without being paid interest for her Charity?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the time of writing this the following letters passed between Mr.\nRuskin and myself:--\n\n\n\n\n                                 16.\n\n\n                                                    THE VICARAGE,\n                                                BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS,\n                                               _September 12th, 1879_.\n\nMY DEAR MR. RUSKIN,--I feel in a great strait. I have before me a task\nof the utmost delicacy, and one before which I feel that I _ought_ to\nshrink,--that of editing your letters, with the accompaniment of\ncomments of my own. You trust me, evidently, or you would have laid down\nlimitations to guard yourself against misrepresentation. My anxiety is\nlest I should abuse that large and generous confidence you have so\nkindly placed in me. Let me explain my position, as I see it myself.\n\nThe series will consist of eleven letters, when you have sent me your\nlast. I have now copied nine, and written concisely the views I have\npresumed to form upon each. With every letter I mostly agree and\nsympathize, looking on them as \"counsels of perfection,\" and viewing the\ngreat subjects you deal with from a far higher standpoint than (in my\nexperience) either laymen or clergymen generally view them. All that\nthere is in me of _enthusiasm_ rings in answering chords to the notes\nyou strike. Yet I do not _always_ agree. But when I do disagree, I\nacknowledge it is because your standard is excessively high--too high\nfor practical purposes.\n\nNow, I ask, shall you consider it strictly fair and honourable in me to\nreceive your letters, read them or send them to assemblies of clergy,\ngather their views, both adverse and favourable, and add diffident\nanimad-versions of my own? If you will allow this to be right, and if\nyou will trust to my sense of what is proper, to deal with your letters\nin the spirit of a Christian and a gentleman, then, hoping to fulfil\nyour expectations, I shall proceed in my work with a mind more at ease;\nfor I could not endure the thought that, after all was done, I had\nwritten a single sentence or word that had inflicted pain upon you.\n\nThen comes another question. Do you wish to hear or read my comments\nbefore they are printed? I say frankly, if you trust me, I would prefer\nnot; for it would not, perhaps, be pleasant for me either to read your\npraises, or my poor criticisms, to your face. But still, if you wish it,\nI shall be ready at your bidding; for I recognize your right to require\nit. Only I would rather read them to you myself some quiet autumn\nevening or two.\n\n\n\n\n                                 17.\n\n\n                                                     _September 13th._\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I am so very grateful for your proposal to edit the\nletters without further reference to me. I think that will be exactly\nthe right way; and I believe I can put you at real ease in the doing of\nit by explaining as I can in very few words the kind of carte-blanche I\nshould rejoicingly give you.\n\nInterrupted to-day! more to-morrow, with, I hope, the last letter.\n\n                                                                J. R.\n\n\n\n\n                                 18.\n\n\n                                             _Sunday, September 14th._\n\nI've nearly done the last letter, but will keep it to-morrow rather than\nfinish hurriedly for the earlier post. Your nice little note has just\ncome, and I can only say that you cannot please me better than by acting\nwith perfect freedom in all ways, and that I only want to see or reply\nto what you wish me for the matter's sake. And surely there is no\noccasion for any thought for waste of type about _me_ personally, except\nonly to express your knowledge of my real desire for the health and\npower of the Church. More than this praise you _must_ not give me, for\nI have learned almost everything I may say that I know by my errors.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                 19.\n\n\n                                               _September 16th, 1879._\n\nI should have returned these two recent letters before now, but have\nbeen looking for the earlier letters which have got mislaid in a general\nrearrangement of all things by a new secretary. I am almost sure to come\non them to-morrow in my own packing up for town, where I must be for a\nmonth hence. Please address, &c.\n\n\n\n\n                                 20.\n\n\n                              [_Undated._]\n\nI am sincerely grieved by the first part of your letter, and scarcely\nlike to trouble you with answer to the close. * * * Surely the first\nthing to be done with the letters is to use them as you propose, and you\nmay find fifty suggestions, made by persons or circumstances after that,\nworth considering. I do not doubt that I could easily add to the bulk of\nMS.; but should then, I think, stipulate for having the book published\nby my own publisher.\n\n\n\n\n                                 21.\n\n\n                                                       _October 13th._\n\nI did not get your kind and interesting letter till yesterday, and can\nonly write in utter haste this morning to say that I think nothing can\npossibly be more satisfactory (to me personally at least) and more\nhonourable than what you tell me of the wish of the meeting to have the\nletters printed for their quiet consideration.[29]\n\n     [29] Canon Rawnsley kindly offered to print them at his own\n     expense; only as many were printed as would be sufficient for three\n     or four clerical societies. Had I known how valuable those little\n     pamphlets were destined to become, I should have had many more\n     printed!--ED.\n\nThey are entirely at your command and theirs--but don't sell the\ncopyright to any publisher. Keep it in your own hands, and after\nexpenses are paid of course any profits should go to the poor. Please\nwrite during this week to me at St. George's Museum, Walkley,\nSheffield.\n\n\n\n\n                                 22.\n\n\n                         _From_ CANON FARRAR.\n\n                                                 _October 29th, 1879._\n\nI am much obliged to you for your courtesy in sending me the letters. I\nam not, however, inclined to enter into any controversy, being painfully\noverwhelmed with the very duties which Mr. Ruskin seems to think that we\ndon't do--looking after the material and religious interests of the\nsick, the suffering, the hungry, the drunken, and the extremely\nwretched.\n\n                                             Yours very truly,\n                                                       F. W. FARRAR.\n\n\n\n\n                                 23.\n\n\n                                      SHEFFIELD, _October 17th, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I am sincerely interested and moved by your history\nof your laborious life--and shall be entirely glad to leave the\ncompleted volume as your property, provided always you sell it to no\npublisher--but take just percentage on the editions: and provided also\nthat an edition be issued of the letters themselves in their present\nsimple form of which the profits, if any, shall be for the poor of the\ndistrict.[30] It would lower your position in the whole matter if it\ncould be hinted that I had written the letters with any semi-purpose of\nserving my friend. On the other hand you will have just and honourable\nright to the profits of the completed edition which your labour and\njudgment will have made possible and guided into the most serviceable\nform.\n\n     [30] This, of course, with Mr. Allen's concurrence, is my\n     intention.--ED.\n\nI am thankful to see that the letters read clearly and easily, and\ncontain all that it was in my mind to get said; that nothing can be\npossibly more right in every way than the printing and binding--nor more\ncourteous and firm than your preface.\n\nYes--there _will_ be a chasm to cross--a tauriformis\nAufidus[31]--greater than Rubicon, and the roar of it for many a year\nhas been heard in the distance, through the gathering fog on earth more\nloudly.\n\n     [31] Sic tauriformis volvitur Aufidus,\n          Qui regna Dauni praefluit Appuli\n              Quum saevit, horrendamque cultis\n                Diluviem meditatur agris.\n\n                                   --HOR. _Carm._ iv. 14.\n\nThe River of Spiritual Death in this world--and entrance to Purgatory in\nthe other, come down to us.\n\nWhen will the feet of the Priests be dipped in the still brim of the\nwater? Jordan overflows his banks already.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen you have got your large edition with its correspondence into form,\nI should like to read the sheets as they are issued, and put merely\nletters of reference, _a_, _b_, and _c_, to be taken up in a short\nepilogue. But I don't want to do or say anything till you have all in\nperfect readiness for publication. I should merely add my reference\nletters in the margin, and the shortest possible notes at the end.\n\nPlease send me ten more of these private ones for my own friends.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                 24.\n\n                 _Extract of a Letter from the late_\n\n                         MISS SUSANNA BEEVER.\n\n   (\"The Younger Lady of the Thwaite, Coniston,\" to whom Mr. Ruskin\n                    dedicated \"Frondes Agrestes.\")\n\n\n                                                 _October 28th, 1879._\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--My sister has asked me to write and thank you for\ntwo copies of Mr. Ruskin's Letters, which you have been so good as to\nsend to her. It is curious that before the post came this morning I had\nbeen wondering whether I might ask you for a copy. * * * I have already\nread these deeply interesting Letters five times. They are like the\n\"foam globes of leaven,\" I might say they have exercised my mind very\nmuch. Things in them which at first seemed rather startling, prove on\ncloser examination to be full of deep truth. The suggestions in them\nlead to \"great searchings of heart.\" There is much with which I entirely\nagree; much over which to ponder. What an insight into human nature is\nshown in the remark that though we are so ready to call ourselves\n\"miserable sinners,\" we resent being accused of any special fault. * * *\n\n\n\n\n                                 25.\n\n\n                                                 _November 7th, 1879._\n\nI am so glad we understand each other now and that you will carry out\nyour plan quietly.\n\nI think you should correct the present little book by my revise, and\nprint enough for whatever private circulation the members of the meeting\nwish, but that it should not be made public till well after the large\nbook is out. For which I shall look with deepest interest.\n\n\n\n\n                                 26.\n\n\n                                                _November 19th, 1879._\n\nMY DEAR MALLESON,--I have not been able to answer a word lately, being\nquite unusually busy in France--and you never remember that it takes\n_me_ as long to write a chapter as you to write a book, and tries me\nmore to do it--so that I am sick of the feel of a pen this many a day.\nI'm delighted to hear of your popularity,[32] being sure that all you\nadvise people to do will be kind and right. I am not surprised at the\npopularity, but I wonder that you have not had some nasty envious\nreviews.[33]\n\n     [32] Meaning in the press notices of the Editor's \"Life of\n     Christ.\"--ED.\n\n     [33] Seventeen _very good_, five _good_, five _fair_, six _bad_,\n     two _nasty, envious_!--ED.\n\nI like the impudence of these Scotch brats.[34] Do they suppose it would\nhave been either pleasure or honour to me to come and lecture there? It\nis perhaps as much their luck as mine that they changed their minds\nabout it. I shall be down at Brantwood soon (_D.V._). Poor Mr. Sly's[35]\ndeath is a much more troublous thing to me than Glasgow Elections.\n\n     [34] Glasgow University.\n\n     [35] Of the Waterhead, Coniston.\n\n\n\n\n                                 27.\n\n\n                                                  _January 5th, 1880._\n\nA Happy New Year to you. If I may judge or guess by the efforts made to\ndraw me into the business, it is likely to be a busy one for you! Will\nyou kindly now send me back my old book on Usury? I've got a letter\n(which for his lordship's sake had better never been written) from the\nBishop of Manchester, and may want to quote a word or two of my back\nletter. I send the letter with my reply this month to the\n_Contemporary_.\n\n\n\n\n                                 28.\n\n\n                                                  _January 7th, 1880._\n\nSo many thanks for your kind little note and the book which I have\nreceived quite safely; and many more thanks for taking all the enemies'\nfire off me and leaving me quiet. I've been all this morning at work on\nfinches and buntings; but I must give the Bishop a turn to-morrow. This\nweather takes my little wits out of me wofully; but I am always\naffectionately yours,\n\n                                                                J. R.\n\n\n\n\n                                 29.\n\n\n                                                     _May 10th, 1880._\n\nMY DEAR MALLESON,--Yes, the omission of the 'Mr.' meant much change in\nall my feelings towards you and estimates of you--for which change,\nbelieve me, I am more glad and thankful than I can well tell you. Not\nbut that of course I always felt your essential goodness and rightness\nof mind, but I did not at all understand the scope of them.\n\nAnd you will have the reward of the Visitation of the Sick, though every\nday I am more sure of the mistake made by good people universally--in\ntrying to pull fallen people up--instead of keeping yet safe ones from\ntumbling after them, and always spending their pains on the worst\ninstead of the best material. If they want to be able to save the lost\nlike Christ, let them first be sure they can say with Him, \"Of those\nThou gavest Me I have lost none.\"\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\nThe 'Epilogue's' an awful bother to me in this May time! I have not done\na word yet, but you shall have it before the week is out.\n\n\n\n\n                                 30.\n\n\n                                                           _April 17._\n\nThe letters seem all very nice--I shall have very little to\nsay about them, except to explain what you observe and have been\nmisunderstood.... Of course my notes shall be sent to you and added to\nwhen you see need. But I cannot do it quickly.\n\n\n\n\n                                 31.\n\n\n                                                     _April 14, 1880._\n\nThanks for nice new proofs. I haven't found any false references, but I\ndidn't look. I'll have all verified by my secretary. I'm busy with an\narticle on modern novels and don't feel a bit pious just now; so the\nresponses have hung fire.\n\n\n\n\n                                 32.\n\n\n                                                              _May 9._\n\nYou are really very good about this, and shall have the notes (_D.V._)\nwithin a fortnight. The Scott could not be put off, being promised for\nJune 19, _Nineteenth Century_, and I could not do novels and sermons\ntogether. I don't think the notes will be long. The letters seem to be\nmostly compliments or small objections not worth noticing.\n\n\n\n\n                                 33.\n\n\n                                                     _May 14th, 1880._\n\nI've just done--yesterday with Scott, and took up the letters for the\nfirst time this morning seriously.\n\nI had never seen _yours_ at all when I wrote last. I fell first on Mr.\n----, whom I read with some attention, and commented on with little\nfavour; went on to the next, and remained content with that taste till I\nhad done my Scott.\n\nI have this morning been reading your own, on which I very earnestly\ncongratulate you. God knows it isn't because they are friendly or\ncomplimentary, but because you _do_ see what I mean, and people hardly\never do--and I think it needs very considerable power and feeling to\nforgive and understand as you do. You have said everything _I_ want to\nsay, and much more--except on the one point of excommunication, which\nwill be the chief, almost the only subject of my final note.\n\nI write in haste to excuse myself for my former note.\n\n                        Ever affectionately\n                             and gratefully yours,\n                                            J. RUSKIN.\n\n(NOTE.--A legal friend remarks that in his opinion I should refrain from\nprinting _extracts_ from letters, and always print the whole; or,\nindeed, in the present case, the whole series of letters, lest it should\nbe suspected that I am making a self-indulgent selection only of the\ngood words which Mr. Ruskin is kind enough to use in his communications\nwith me. Let me here say, however, that had there been in all these\nletters any which conveyed censure, stricture, or blame of any kind, I\nshould not have withheld my hand from including them. But no such\nletters ever came to me. Mr. Ruskin is the very pink of courtesy with\nhis friends, and he _may_ have suppressed remarks which he thought might\nwound me. But I am reproducing here not my friend's secret thoughts, but\nonly those of his letters which remain in my possession.--EDITOR.)\n\n\n\n\n                                 34.\n\n\n                                                     _May 26th, 1880._\n\nI'm at work on the 'Epilogue,' but it takes more trouble than I\nexpected. I see there's a letter from you which I leave unopened, for\nfear there should be anything in it to put me in a bad temper, which you\nmight easily do without meaning it. You shall have the 'Epilogue' as\nsoon as I can get it done; but you won't much like it, for there are\nbits in the Clergymen's letters that have put my bristles up. They ought\neither to have said nothing about me, or known more.\n\nI should give that rascally Bishop a dressing \"au serieux,\" only you\nwouldn't like to godfather it, so I'll keep it for somewhere else.[36]\n\n     [36] Needless to say that in this energetic language, the Master of\n     the Company of St. George is referring to nothing whatever in the\n     stainless character of the great Bishop, of whom it is justly\n     recorded in the inscription on his monument in Manchester Cathedral\n     that \"he won all hearts by opening to them his own;\" except only in\n     the matter of house-rent and interest of money, opinions which the\n     Bishop shared with the great mass of civilized humanity.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 35.\n\n\n                                                     _June 7th, 1880._\n\nYour letter is a relief to my mind, and shall not be taken advantage of\nfor more delay. The wet day or two would get all done: but I simply\ncan't think of anything but the sun while it shines.\n\nAnd I've had second, third, and seventh thoughts about several things:\nas it is coming out I believe it will be a useful contribution to the\nbook.\n\nI shall get it in the copyist's hand on Monday, and as it's one of my\ngirl secretaries, I shall be teased till it's done, so it's safe for the\nend of the week (_D.V._). I am sadly afraid she'll make me cut out some\nof the spiciest bits: the girl secretaries are always allowed to put\ntheir pens through anything they choose. Please drop the 'Mr.'; it is a\nmatter of friendship, not as if there were any of different powers. God\nonly knows of higher and lower, and, as far as I can judge, is likely to\nput ministry to the sick much above public letters.\n\nThanks for note of Menyanthes Trifoliata.\n\nI haven't seen it, scarcely moving at present beyond my wood or garden.\n\n\n\n\n                                 36.\n\n\n                                                    _June 13th, 1880._\n\nYou are really very good to put up with all that vicious Epilogue. But\nit won't discredit _you_ in the end, whatever it may do me. I hope much\notherwise.\n\nI will send you to-morrow the Lincoln, or, possibly, York MS. to look\nat. You will find the Litany following the Quicunque vult, and on the\nleaf marked by me 83, at the top the passage I began quotation with. It\nwill need a note; for _domptnum_ is, I believe, strong Yorkshire Latin\nfor Donum Apostolicum, not Dominum.\n\nThe _e_ in Ecclesie for _ae_ is the proper form in medieval Latin.\n\nThe calendar and Litany are invaluable in their splendid lists of\nEnglish saints, and the entire book unreplaceable, so mind you lock it\nup carefully!\n\n\n\n\n                                 37.\n\n\nThere's a good deal of interest in the enclosed layman's letter, I\nthink. Would you like to print any bits of it? I cannot quite make up my\nmind if it's worth or not.\n\n\n\n\n                                 38.\n\n\n                                                    _June 27th, 1880._\n\nThe 'Epilogue' is all but done to-day, and shall be sent by railway\nguard to-morrow (_D.V._), with a book which will further interest you\nand your good secretary. It is as fine an example of the coloured print\nPrayer-Book as I have seen, date 1507, and full of examples of the way\nRomanism had ruined itself at that date. But it may contain in legible\nform some things of interest. I never could make out so much as its\nCalendar; but the songs about the saints and rhymed hours are very\npretty. Though the illuminations are all ridiculous and one or two\nfrightful, most are more or less pretty, and nearly all interesting. You\ncan keep it any time, but you must promise me not to show it to anybody\nwho does not know how to handle a book. * * *\n\n(NOTE.--I may mention here, once for all, that wherever there are\nomissions left in Mr. Ruskin's letters, there is nothing of interest or\nimportance in those passages for any one but for the receiver of that\nletter.)\n\n\n\n\n                                 39.\n\n\n                                                    _July 15th, 1880._\n\n* * * It is a further light to me, on your curious differences from most\nclergymen, very wonderful and venerable to me, that you should\nunderstand Byron!\n\n\n\n\n                                 40.\n\n\n                                                          _June 25th._\n\nDEAR MALLESON,--No, I don't want the letter printed in the least; but\nit ought to have interested you very differently. It is by a much older\nman than I, who has never heard of our letters, but has been a very\nuseful and influential person in his own parish, and is a practical and\nacceptable contributor to sporting papers. He is an able lawyer also,\nand knows far better than I do and far better than most clergymen know,\nwhat could really be done in their country parishes if they had a mind.\n\nThe bit of manuscript is perfectly fac-similed by your niece, but I\ncan't read it: and it will be much better that you mark the places you\nwish certification about, and that I then send the book up to the\nBritish Museum, and have the whole made clear. The _dompt_ is a very\nimportant matter indeed.\n\nI have got the last bit of epilogue fairly on foot this morning, and\ncan promise it on Monday all well.\n\n                                  Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. R.\n\n\n\n\n                                 41.\n\n\n                                                   _April 30th, 1881._\n\nDEAR MALLESON,--It will be many a day before I recover yet--if ever--but\nwith caution I hope not to go wild again, and to get what power belongs\nto my age slowly back. When were you in the same sort of danger? Let me\nvery strongly warn you from the whirlpool edge--the going down in the\nmiddle is gloomier than I can tell you.\n\nBut I shall thankfully see you and your friend here. Visiting is out of\nthe question for me. I can bear no fatigue nor excitement away from my\nhome. I pay visits no more--anywhere (even in old times few). It is\nalways a great gladness to me when young students care about old\nbooks--and I remember as a duty the feeling I used to have in getting a\nMissal, even after I was past a good many other pleasures. You made such\ngood use of that book too, that I am happy in yielding to any wish of\nyours about it, so your young friend[37] shall have it if he likes. The\nmarked price is quite a fair market one for it, though you might look\nand wait long before such a book came _into_ the market. The British\nMuseum people were hastily and superciliously wrong in calling it a\ncommon book. It is not a _showy_ one; but there are few more interesting\nor more perfect service books in English manuscript, and the Museum\npeople buy cart-loads of big folios that are not worth the shelf room.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n     [37] Rev. J. R. Haslam, now Vicar of Thwaites, Cumberland. See\n     Appendix.--ED.\n\n\n\n\n                                 42.\n\n\n                                                   _April 23rd, 1881._\n\nMY DEAR MALLESON,--These passages of description and illustration of the\ngeneral aspect of Ephesus in St. Paul's time seem to me much more\nforcibly and artistically written than anything you did in the \"Life of\nChrist\"; and I could not suggest any changes to you which you could now\ncarry out under the conditions of time to revise, except a more clear\nstatement of the Ephesian goddess.\n\n[I really do not think Mr. Ruskin would wish that _all_ he wrote in the\nnext sentence about the Ephesian Diana should be placed before the\npublic eye. But I resume in the middle of a sentence.]\n\n... practically at last and chiefly of the Diabolic Suction of the\nUsurer; and her temple, which you luckily liken to the Bank of England,\nwas in fact what that establishment would be as the recognised place of\npious pilgrimage for all Jews, infidels, or prostitutes in the realm of\nEngland. You could not conceive the real facts of these degraded\nworships of the mixed Greek and Asiatic races, unless you gave a good\nyear's work to the study of the decline of Greek art in the 3rd and 4th\ncenturies B.C.\n\nCharles Newton's pride in discovering Mausolus, and engineers' whistling\nover his Asiatic mummy, have entirely corrupted and thwarted the uses\nof the British Museum Art Galleries. The Drum of that Diana Temple is\nbarbarous rubbish, not worth tenpence a ton; and if I shewed you a\nphotograph of the head of Mausolus without telling you what it was, I\nwill undertake that you saw with candid eyes in it nothing more than the\nshaggy poll of a common gladiator. But your book will swim with the\ntide. It is best so.\n\n\n\n\n                                 43.\n\n\n                                                            _July...._\n\nI'm not in the least anxious about my MS., and shall only be glad if you\nlike to keep it long enough to read thoroughly. There must surely be\npublished copies of such extant, though, and worth enquiring after?\n\nPartly the fine weather, partly the heat, partly a fit of Scott and\nByron have stopped the Epilogue utterly for the time! You cannot be in\nany hurry for it surely? There's plenty to go on printing with.\n\nI don't think you will find the n's and m's much bother; the\ncontractions are the great nuisance. But I do think this development of\nGothic writing one of the oddest absurdities of mankind.\n\nThe illumination of \"the fool hath said in his heart,\" snapping his\nfingers, or more accurately making the indecent sign called \"the fig\" by\nthe Italians, is a very unusual one in this MS., and peculiarly English.\n\n\n\n\n                                 44.\n\n\nThere is not the least use in my looking over these sheets: you\nprobably know more about Athens than I do, and what I do know is out of\nand in Smith's Dictionary, where you can find it without trouble.\n\nFor the rest you must please always remember what I told you once for\nall, that you could never interest _me_ by writing about people, either\nat Athens or Ephesus, but only of those of the parish of\nBroughton-in-Furness.\n\nThat new translation could not come out well; that much I know without\nlooking at it. One must believe the Bible before one understands it, (I\nmean, believe that it is understandable) and one must understand before\none can translate it. Two stages in advance of your Twenty-Four\nCo-operative Tyndales!\n\n\n\n\n                                 45.\n\n\n                                                           _26th May._\n\nDEAR MALLESON,--I should be delighted to see Canon Weston and you any\nday: but I want J---- to be at home, and she is going to town next week\nfor a month, and will be fussy till she goes. She promises to be back\nfaithfully within the week after that--within the Sunday, I mean. Fix\nany day or any choice of days if one is wet after the said Sunday, and\nwe shall both be in comfort ready.\n\nIf Canon Weston or you are going away anywhere, come any day before that\nsuits you.\n\nIn divinity matters I am obliged to stop--for my sins, I suppose. But it\nseems I am almost struck mad when I think earnestly about them, and I'm\nonly reading now natural history or nature.\n\nNever mind Autograph people, they are never worth the scratch of a pen.\n\n                                     Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                            J. R.\n\n\n\n\n                                 46.\n\n\n                                                  _August 26th, 1881._\n\nI'm in furious bad humour with the weather, and cannot receive just now\nat all, having had infinitely too much of indoors, and yet unable to\ndraw for darkness, or write for temper. But I will see Mr. ---- if he\nhas any other reason than curiosity for wishing to see me--what does he\nwant with me?\n\n\n\n\n                                 47.\n\n\n                                                       _21st October._\n\nI am fairly well, but have twenty times the work in hand that I am able\nfor; and read--Virgil, Plato, and Hesoid, when I have time! But\nassuredly no modern books; least of all my friends', lest I should have\neither to flatter or offend. Still less will I have to say to young men\nproposing to become clergymen. I have distinctly told them their\nbusiness is at present--to dig, not preach.\n\nLet your young friend read his Fors. All that he needs of me is in that.\n\n\n\n\n                                 48.\n\n\n                                                   ANNECY, SAVOY,\n                                                _November 15th, 1882._\n\nI have got your kind little note of the 11th yesterday, and am entirely\nglad to hear of your papers on the Duddon. I shall be very happy indeed\nif you find any pleasure in remembering our walk to the tarn.[38] I hope\nI know now better how to manage myself in all ways, and we may still\nhave some pleasant talks, my health not failing me.\n\n     [38] Goat's Water, under the Old Man of Coniston.\n\n\n\n\n                                 49.\n\n\n                                                TALLOIRE, SWITZERLAND,\n                                                _November 20th, 1882._\n\nMY DEAR MALLESON,--I am sincerely grieved that you begin to feel the\neffect of overwork; but as this is the first warning you have had, and\nas you are wise enough to obey it, I trust that the three months' rest\nwill restore you all your usual powers on the conditions of using them\nwith discretion, and not rising to write at two in the morning.\n\nI am very thankful to find in my own case that a quiet spring of energy\nfilters back into the old well-heads--if one does not bucket it out as\nfast as it comes in.\n\nBut my last illnesses seriously impaired my walking powers, and I'm\nafraid if you came to Switzerland I should be very jealous of you.\n\nCertainly it is not in this season a country for an invalid, and I\nbelieve you cannot be safer than by English firesides with no books to\nwork at nor parishioners to visit.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                 50.\n\n\n                                                 _January 22nd, 1883._\n\nDEAR MALLESON,--I am heartily glad to hear that you are better, and that\nyou are going to lead the Vicar of Wakefield's quiet life. I am not\nstronger myself, but think it right to keep hold of the Oxford Helm, as\nlong as they care to trust it to me.\n\nI've entirely given up reviewing, but if the Editor of the\n_Contemporary_ would send me Mr. Peek's Article, when set up, I might\nperhaps send a note or two on it, which the real reviewer might use or\nnot at his pleasure. In the meantime it would greatly oblige me if the\nEditor could give me the reference to an old article of mine on Herbert\nSpencer, (or at least on a saying of his), which I cannot find where I\nthought it was in the _Nineteenth Century_, and suppose therefore to\nhave been in the _Contemporary_ before the _Nineteenth Century_ Athena\narose out of its cleft head.\n\nThe Article had a lot about Coniston in it, but I quite forget what else\nit was about. I think it must have been just before the separation.\nKindest regards and congratulations on your convalescence from all here.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                                 51.\n\n\n                                      BRANTWOOD, _February 6th, 1883_.\n\nMY DEAR MALLESON,--I'm nearly beside myself with a sudden rush of work\non my return from abroad, and resumption of Oxford duties, and I simply\n_cannot_ yet think over the business of the letters, the rather that _I_\ncertainly never would re-publish most of those clergymen's letters at\nall.\n\nMy own were a gift to you, and I am quite ready to print _them_ if you\nlike, and let you have half profits, the St. George's Guild having the\nother. But that could not be for some time yet.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                        EPILOGUE BY MR. RUSKIN\n\n\n                                     BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, _June 1880_.\n\nMY DEAR MALLESON,--I have glanced at the proofs you send; and _can_ do\nno more than glance, even if it seemed to me desirable that I should do\nmore,--which, after said glance, it does in no wise. Let me remind you\nof what it is absolutely necessary that the readers of the book should\nclearly understand--that I wrote these Letters at your request, to be\nread and discussed at the meeting of a private society of clergymen. I\ndeclined then to be present at the discussion, and I decline still. You\nafterwards asked leave to print the Letters, to which I replied that\nthey were yours, for whatever use you saw good to make of them:\nafterwards your plans expanded, while my own notion remained precisely\nwhat it had been--that the discussion should have been private, and kept\nwithin the limits of the society, and that its conclusions, if any,\nshould have been announced in a few pages of clear print, for the\nparishioners' exclusive reading.\n\nI am, of course, flattered by the wider course you have obtained for the\nLetters, but am not in the slightest degree interested by the debate\nupon them, nor by any religious debates whatever, undertaken without\nserious conviction that there is a jot wrong in matters as they are, or\nserious resolution to make them a tittle better. Which, so far as I can\nread the minds of your correspondents, appears to me the substantial\nstate of them.\n\nOne thing I cannot pass without protest--the quantity of talk about the\nwriter of the Letters. What I am, or am not, is of no moment whatever to\nthe matters in hand. I observe with comfort, or at least with\ncomplacency, that on the strength of a couple of hours' talk, at a time\nwhen I was thinking chiefly of the weatherings of slate you were good\nenough to show me above Goat's Water, you would have ventured to baptize\nme in the little lake--as not a goat, but a sheep. The best I can be\nsure of, myself, is that I am no wolf, and have never aspired to the\ndignity even of a Dog of the Lord.\n\nYou told me, if I remember rightly, that one of the members of the\noriginal meeting denounced me as an arch-heretic[39]--meaning,\ndoubtless, an arch-pagan; for a heretic, or sect-maker, is of all terms\nof reproach the last that can be used of me. And I think he should have\nbeen answered that it was precisely as an arch-pagan that I ventured to\nrequest a more intelligible and more unanimous account of the Christian\nGospel from its preachers.\n\n     [39] Only a heretic!--ED.\n\nIf anything in the Letters offended those of you who hold me a brother,\nsurely it had been best to tell me between ourselves, or to tell it to\nthe Church, or to let me be Anathema Maranatha in peace,--in any case, I\nmust at present so abide, correcting only the mistakes about myself\nwhich have led to graver ones about the things I wanted to speak of.[40]\n\n     [40] I may perhaps be pardoned for vindicating at least my\n     arithmetic, which, with Bishop Colenso, I rather pride myself upon.\n     One of your correspondents greatly doubts my having heard five\n     thousand assertors of evangelical principles (Catholic-absolvent or\n     Protestant-detergent are virtually the same). I am now sixty years\n     old, and for forty-five of them was in church at least once on the\n     Sunday,--say once a month also in afternoons,--and you have above\n     three thousand church services. When I am abroad I am often in\n     half-a-dozen churches in the course of a single day, and never lose\n     a chance of listening to anything that is going on. Add the\n     conversations pursued, not unearnestly, with every sort of reverend\n     person I can get to talk to me--from the Bishop of Strasburg (as\n     good a specimen of a town bishop as I have known), with whom I was\n     studying ecstatic paintings in the year 1850--down to the simplest\n     travelling tinker inclined Gospelwards, whom I perceive to be\n     sincere, and your correspondent will perceive that my rapid\n     numerical expression must be far beneath the truth. He subjoins his\n     more rational doubt of my acquaintance with many town missionaries;\n     to which I can only answer, that as I do not live in town, nor set\n     up for a missionary myself, my spiritual advantages have certainly\n     not been great in that direction. I simply assert that of the few I\n     have known,--beginning with Mr. Spurgeon, under whom I sat with\n     much edification for a year or two,--I have not known any such\n     teaching as I speak of.\n\nThe most singular one, perhaps, in all the Letters is that of Mr. ----,\nthat I do not attach enough weight to antiquity. My reply to it is\npartly written already, with reference to the wishes of some other of\nyour correspondents to know more of my reasons for finding fault with\nthe English Liturgy.\n\nIf people are taught to use the Liturgy rightly and reverently, it will\nbring them all good; and for some thirty years of my life I used to read\nit always through to my servant and myself, if we had no Protestant\nchurch to go to, in Alpine or Italian villages. One can always tacitly\npray of it what one wants, and let the rest pass. But, as I have grown\nolder, and watched the decline in the Christian faith of all nations, I\nhave got more and more suspicious of the effect of this particular form\nof words on the truthfulness of the English mind (now fast becoming a\nsalt which has lost his savour, and is fit only to be trodden under\nfoot of men). And during the last ten years, in which my position at\nOxford has compelled me to examine what authority there was for the code\nof prayer, of which the University is now so ashamed that it no more\ndares compel its youths so much as to hear, much less to utter it, I got\nnecessarily into the habit of always looking to the original forms of\nthe prayers of the fully developed Christian Church. Nor did I think it\na mere chance which placed in my own possession a manuscript of the\nperfect Church service of the thirteenth century,[41] written by the\nmonks of the Sainte Chapelle for St. Louis; together with one of the\nsame date, written in England, probably for the Diocese of Lincoln;\nadding some of the Collects, in which it corresponds with St. Louis's,\nand the Latin hymns so much beloved by Dante, with the appointed music\nfor them.\n\n     [41] See Appendix.\n\nAnd my wonder has been greater every hour, since I examined closely the\ntext of these and other early books, that in any state of declining, or\ncaptive, energy, the Church of England should have contented itself with\na service which cast out, from beginning to end, all these intensely\nspiritual and passionate utterances of chanted prayer (the whole body,\nthat is to say, of the authentic _Christian_ Psalms), and in adopting\nwhat it timidly preserved of the Collects, mangled or blunted them down\nto the exact degree which would make them either unintelligible or\ninoffensive--so vague that everybody might use them, or so pointless\nthat nobody could be offended by them. For a special instance: The\nprayer for \"our bishops and curates, and all congregations committed to\ntheir charge,\" is, in the Lincoln Service-book, \"for our bishop, and all\ncongregations committed to _his_ charge.\" The change from singular to\nplural seems a slight one. But it suffices to take the eyes of the\npeople off their own bishop into infinite space; to change a prayer\nwhich was intended to be uttered in personal anxiety and affection, into\none for the general good of the Church, of which nobody could judge, and\nfor which nobody would particularly care; and, finally, to change a\nprayer to which the answer, if given, would be visible, into one of\nwhich nobody could tell whether it were answered or not.\n\nIn the Collects, the change, though verbally slight, is thus tremendous\nin issue. But in the Litany--word and thought go all wild together. The\nfirst prayer of the Litany in the Lincoln Service-book is for the Pope\nand all ranks beneath him, implying a very noteworthy piece of\ntheology--that the Pope might err in religious matters, and that the\nprayer of the humblest servant of God would be useful to him:--\"Ut\nDompnum Apostolicum, et omnes gradus ecclesie in sancta religione\nconservare digneris.\" Meaning that whatever errors particular persons\nmight, and must, fall into, they prayed God to keep the Pope right, and\nthe collective testimony and conduct of the ranks below him. Then\nfollows the prayer for their own bishop and _his_ flock--then for the\nking and the princes (chief lords), that they (not all nations) might be\nkept in concord--and then for _our_ bishops and abbots,--the Church of\nEngland proper; every one of these petitions being direct, limited, and\npersonally heartfelt;--and then this lovely one for themselves:--\n\n\"Ut obsequium servitutis nostre rationabile facias.\"--\"That thou wouldst\nmake the obedience of our service reasonable\" (\"which is your reasonable\nservice\").[42]\n\n     [42] See in the Appendix for more of these beautiful prayers.--ED.\n\nThis glorious prayer is, I believe, accurately an \"early English\" one.\nIt is not in the St. Louis Litany, nor in a later elaborate French\nfourteenth century one; but I find it softened in an Italian MS. of the\nfifteenth century into \"ut nosmet ipsos in tuo sancto servitio\nconfortare et conservare digneris,\"--\"that thou wouldst deign to keep\nand comfort us ourselves in thy sacred service\" (the comfort, observe,\nbeing here asked for whether reasonable or not!); and in the best and\nfullest French service-book I have, printed at Rouen in 1520, it\nbecomes, \"ut congregationes omnium sanctorum in tuo sancto servitio\nconservare digneris;\" while victory as well as concord is asked for the\nking and the princes,--thus leading the way to that for our own Queen's\nvictory over all her enemies, a prayer which might now be advisedly\naltered into one that she--and in her, the monarchy of England--might\nfind more fidelity in their friends.\n\nI give one more example of the corruption of our Prayer-Book, with\nreference to the objections taken by some of your correspondents to the\ndistinction implied in my Letters between the Persons of the Father and\nthe Christ.\n\nThe \"Memoria de Sancta Trinitate,\" in the St. Louis service-book, runs\nthus:\n\n\"Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui dedisti famulis tuis in confessione\nvere fidei eterne Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere, et in potentia\nmajestatis adorare unitatem, quesumus ut ejus fidei firmitate ab omnibus\nsemper muniemur adversis. Qui vivis et regnas Deus, per omnia secula\nseculorum. Amen.\"\n\n\"Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given to Thy servants, in\nconfession of true faith to recognize the glory of the Eternal Trinity,\nand in the power of Majesty to pray to the Unity; we ask that by the\nfirmness of that faith we may be always defended from all adverse\nthings, who livest and reignest God through all ages. Amen.\"\n\nTurning to our Collect, we find we have first slipped in the word \"us\"\nbefore \"Thy servants,\" and by that little insertion have slipped in the\nsquire and his jockey, and the public-house landlord--and any one else\nwho may chance to have been coaxed, swept, or threatened into church on\nTrinity Sunday, and required the entire company of them to profess\nthemselves servants of God, and believers in the mystery of the Trinity.\nAnd we think we have done God a service!\n\n\"Grace.\" Not a word about grace in the original. You don't believe by\nhaving grace, but by having wit.\n\n\"To acknowledge.\" \"Agnosco\" is to recognize, not to acknowledge. To\n_see_ that there are three lights in a chandelier is a great deal more\nthan to acknowledge that they are there.\n\n\"To worship.\" \"Adorare\" is to pray to, not to worship. You may worship a\nmere magistrate; but you _pray_ to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.\n\nThe last sentence in the English is too horribly mutilated to be dealt\nwith in any patience. The meaning of the great old collect is that by\nthe shield of that faith we may quench all the fiery darts of the devil.\nThe English prayer means, if it means anything, \"Please keep us in our\nfaith without our taking any trouble; and, besides, please don't let us\nlose our money, nor catch cold.\"\n\n\"Who livest and reignest.\" Right; but how many of any extant or instant\ncongregations understand what the two words mean? That God is a living\nGod, not a dead Law; and that He is a reigning God, putting wrong things\nto rights, and that, sooner or later, with a strong hand and a rod of\niron; and not at all with a soft sponge and warm water, washing\neverybody as clean as a baby every Sunday morning, whatever dirty work\nthey may have been about all the week.\n\nOn which latter supposition your modern Liturgy, in so far as it has\nsupplemented instead of corrected the old one, has entirely modelled\nitself,--producing in its first address to the congregation before the\nAlmighty precisely the faultfullest and foolishest piece of English\nlanguage that I know in the whole compass of English or American\nliterature. In the seventeen lines of it (as printed in my\nold-fashioned, large-print prayer-book), there are seven times over two\nwords for one idea.\n\n    1. Acknowledge and confess.\n    2. Sins and wickedness.\n    3. Dissemble nor cloke.\n    4. Goodness and mercy.\n    5. Assemble and meet.\n    6. Requisite and necessary.\n    7. Pray and beseech.\n\nThere is, indeed, a shade of difference in some of these ideas for a\ngood scholar, none for a general congregation;[43] and what difference\nthey can guess at merely muddles their heads: to acknowledge sin is\nindeed different from confessing it, but it cannot be done at a minute's\nnotice; and goodness is a different thing from mercy, but it is by no\nmeans God's infinite goodness that forgives our badness, but that judges\nit.\n\n     [43] The only explanation ever offered for this exuberant wordiness\n     is that if worshippers did not understand one term they would the\n     other, and in some cases, in the Exhortation and elsewhere, one\n     word is of Latin and the other of Saxon derivation.[44] But this is\n     surely a very feeble excuse for bad composition. Of a very\n     different kind is that beautiful climax which is reached in the\n     three admirably chosen pairs of words in the Prayer for the\n     Parliament, \"peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and\n     piety.\"--EDITOR.\n\n     [44] The repetition of synonymous terms is of very frequent\n     occurrence in sixteenth century writing, as \"for ever and aye,\"\n     \"Time and the hour ran through the roughest day\" (Macbeth, i. 3).\n\n\"The faultfullest,\" I said, \"and the foolishest.\" After using fourteen\nwords where seven would have done, what is it that the whole speech\ngets said with its much speaking? This Morning Service of all England\nbegins with the assertion that the Scripture moveth us in sundry places\nto confess our sins before God. _Does_ it so? Have your congregations\never been referred to those sundry places? Or do they take the assertion\non trust, or remain under the impression that, unless with the advantage\nof their own candour, God must remain ill-informed on the subject of\ntheir sins?\n\n\"That we should not dissemble nor cloke them.\" _Can_ we then? Are these\ngrown-up congregations of the enlightened English Church in the\nnineteenth century still so young in their nurseries that the \"Thou,\nGod, seest me\" is still not believed by them if they get under the bed?\n\nLet us look up the sundry moving passages referred to.\n\n(I suppose myself a simple lamb of the flock, and only able to use my\nEnglish Bible.)\n\nI find in my concordance (confess and confession together) forty-two\noccurrences of the word. Sixteen of these, including John's confession\nthat he was not the Christ, and the confession of the faithful fathers\nthat they were pilgrims on the earth, do indeed move us strongly to\nconfess Christ before men. Have you ever taught your congregations what\nthat confession means? They are ready enough to confess Him in church,\nthat is to say, in their own private synagogue. Will they in Parliament?\nWill they in a ball-room? Will they in a shop? Sixteen of the texts are\nto enforce their doing _that_.\n\nThe next most important one (1 Tim. vi. 13) refers to Christ's own good\nconfession, which I suppose was not of His sins, but of His obedience.\nHow many of your congregations can make any such kind of confession, or\nwish to make it?\n\nThe eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth (1 Kings viii. 33, 2 Chron.\nvi. 26, Heb. xiii. 15) speak of confessing thankfully that God is God\n(and not a putrid plasma nor a theory of development), and the\ntwenty-first (Job xl. 14) speaks of God's own confession, that no doubt\nwe are the people, and that wisdom shall die with us, and on what\nconditions He will make it.\n\nThere remain twenty-one texts which do speak of the confession of our\nsins--very moving ones indeed--and Heaven grant that some day the\nBritish public may be moved by them.\n\n1. The first is Lev. v. 5, \"He shall confess that he hath sinned _in\nthat thing_.\" And if you can get any soul of your congregation to say he\nhas sinned in _any_thing, he may do it in two words for one if he likes,\nand it will yet be good liturgy.\n\n2. The second is indeed general--Lev. xvi. 21: the command that the\nwhole nation should afflict its soul on the great day of atonement once\na year. The Church of England, I believe, enjoins no such unpleasant\nceremony. Her festivals are passed by her people often indeed in the\nextinction of their souls, but by no means in their intentional\naffliction.\n\n3. The third, fourth, and fifth (Lev. xxvi. 40, Numb. v. 7, Nehem. i. 6)\nrefer all to national humiliation for definite idolatry, accompanied\nwith an entire abandonment of that idolatry, and of idolatrous persons.\nHow soon _that_ form of confession is likely to find a place in the\nEnglish congregations the defences of their main idol, mammon, in the\nvilest and cruellest shape of it--usury--with which this book has been\ndefiled, show very sufficiently.\n\n6. The sixth is Psalm xxxii. 5--virtually the whole of that psalm, which\ndoes, indeed, entirely refer to the greater confession, once for all\nopening the heart to God, which can be by no means done fifty-two times\na year, and which, once done, puts men into a state in which they will\nnever again say there is no health in them; nor that their hearts are\ndesperately wicked; but will obey for ever the instantly following\norder, \"Rejoice in the Lord, ye righteous, and shout for joy, all ye\nthat are true of heart.\"\n\n7. The seventh is the one confession in which I can myself\nshare:--\"After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Lord\nGod of my fathers.\"\n\n8. The eighth, James v. 16, tells us to confess our faults--not to God,\nbut \"one to another\"--a practice not favoured by English\ncatechumens--(by the way, what _do_ you all mean by \"auricular\"\nconfession--confession that can be heard? and is the Protestant\npleasanter form one that can't be?)\n\n9. The ninth is that passage of St. John (i. 9), the favourite\nevangelical text, which is read and preached by thousands of false\npreachers every day, without once going on to read its great companion,\n\"Beloved, if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and\nknoweth all things; but if our heart condemn us _not_, then have we\nconfidence toward God.\" Make your people understand the second text, and\nthey will understand the first. At present you leave them understanding\nneither.\n\nAnd the entire body of the remaining texts is summed in Joshua vii. 19\nand Ezra x. 11, in which, whether it be Achan, with his Babylonish\ngarment, or the people of Israel, with their Babylonish lusts, the\nmeaning of confession is simply what it is to every brave boy, girl,\nman, and woman, who knows the meaning of the word \"honour\" before God or\nman--namely, to say what they have done wrong, and to take the\npunishment of it (not to get it blanched over by any means), and to do\nit no more--which is so far from being a tone of mind generally enforced\neither by the English, or any other extant Liturgy, that, though all my\nmaids are exceedingly pious, and insist on the privilege of going to\nchurch as a quite inviolable one, I think it a scarcely to be hoped for\ncrown and consummation of virtue in them that they should tell me when\nthey have broken a plate; and I should expect to be met only with looks\nof indignation and astonishment if I ventured to ask one of them how she\nhad spent her Sunday afternoon.\n\n\"Without courage,\" said Sir Walter Scott, \"there is no truth; and\nwithout truth there is no virtue.\" The sentence would have been itself\nmore true if Sir Walter had written \"candour\" for \"truth,\" for it is\npossible to be true in insolence, or true in cruelty. But in looking\nback from the ridges of the Hill Difficulty in my own past life, and in\nall the vision that has been given me of the wanderings in the ways of\nothers--this, of all principles, has become to me surest--that the first\nvirtue to be required of man is frankness of heart and lip: and I\nbelieve that every youth of sense and honour, putting himself to\nfaithful question, would feel that he had the devil for confessor, if he\nhad not his father or his friend.\n\nThat a clergyman should ever be so truly the friend of his parishioners\nas to deserve their confidence from childhood upwards, may be flouted as\na sentimental ideal; but he is assuredly only their enemy in showing his\nLutheran detestation of the sale of indulgences by broadcasting these\ngratis from his pulpit.\n\nThe inconvenience and unpleasantness of a catechism concerning itself\nwith the personal practice as well as the general theory of duty, are\nindeed perfectly conceivable by me; yet I am not convinced that such\nmanner of catechism would therefore be less medicinal; and during the\npast ten years it has often been matter of amazed thought with me, while\nour President at Corpus read prayers to the chapel benches, what might\nby this time have been the effect on the learning as well as the creed\nof the University, if, forty years ago, our stern old Dean Gaisford, of\nthe House of Christ, instead of sending us to chapel as to the house of\ncorrection, when we missed a lecture, had inquired, before he allowed us\nto come to chapel at all, whether we were gamblers, harlot-mongers, or\nin concealed and selfish debt.\n\nI observe with extreme surprise in the preceding letters the\nunconsciousness of some of your correspondents, that there ever was such\na thing as discipline in the Christian Church. Indeed, the last\nwholesome instance of it I can remember was when my own great-great\nuncle Maitland lifted Lady ---- from his altar rails, and led her back\nto her seat before the congregation, when she offered to take the\nSacrament, being at enmity with her son.[45] But I believe a few hours\nhonestly spent by any clergyman on his Church history would show him\nthat the Church's confidence in her prayer has been always exactly\nproportionate to the strictness of her discipline; that her present\nfright at being caught praying by a chemist or an electrician, results\nmainly from her having allowed her twos and threes gathered in the name\nof Christ to become sixes and sevens gathered in the name of Belial;\nand that therefore her now needfullest duty is to explain to her\nstammering votaries, extremely doubtful as they are of the effect of\ntheir supplications either on politics or the weather, that although\nElijah was a man subject to like passions as we are, he had them better\nunder command; and that while the effectual fervent prayer of a\nrighteous man availeth much, the formal and lukewarm one of an\niniquitous man availeth--much the other way.\n\n     [45] In some of the country districts of Scotland the right of the\n     Church to interfere with the lives of private individuals is still\n     exercised. Only two years ago, a wealthy gentleman farmer was\n     rebuked by the \"Kirk Session\" of the Dissenting Church to which he\n     belonged, for infidelity to his wife.\n\n     At the Scottish half-yearly Communion the ceremony of \"fencing the\n     tables\" used to be observed; that is, turning away all those whose\n     lives were supposed to have made them unfit to receive the\n     Sacrament.\n\nSuch an instruction, coupled with due explanation of the nature of\nrighteousness and iniquity, directed mainly to those who have the power\nof both in their own hands, being makers of law, and holders of\nproperty, would, without any further debate, bring about a very singular\nchange in the position and respectability of English clergymen.\n\nHow far they may at present be considered as merely the Squire's left\nhand, bound to know nothing of what he is doing with his right, it is\nfor their own consciences to determine.\n\nFor instance, a friend wrote to me the other day, \"Will you not come\nhere? You will see a noble duke destroying a village as old as the\nConquest, and driving out dozens of families whose names are in Domesday\nBook, because, owing to the neglect of his ancestors and rackrenting for\na hundred years, the place has fallen out of repair, and the people are\npoor, and may become paupers. A local paper ventured to tell the truth.\nThe duke's agent called on the editor, and threatened him with\ndestruction if he did not hold his tongue.\" The noble duke, doubtless,\nhas proper Protestant horror of auricular confession. But suppose,\ninstead of the local editor, the local parson had ventured to tell the\ntruth from his pulpit, and even to intimate to his Grace that he might\nno longer receive the Body and Blood of the Lord at the altar of that\nparish. The parson would scarcely--in these days--have been therefore\nmade bonfire of, and had a pretty martyr's memorial by Mr. Scott's\npupils; but he would have lighted a goodly light, nevertheless, in this\nEngland of ours, whose pettifogging piety has now neither the courage to\ndeny a duke's grace in its church, nor to declare Christ's in its\nParliament.\n\nLastly. Several of your contributors, I observe, have rashly dipped\ntheir feet in the brim of the water of that raging question of Usury;\nand I cannot but express my extreme regret that you should yourself have\nyielded to the temptation of expressing opinions which you have had no\nleisure either to found or to test. My assertion, however, that the rich\nlived mainly by robbing the poor, referred not to Usury, but to Rent;\nand the facts respecting both these methods of extortion are perfectly\nand indubitably ascertainable by any person who himself wishes to\nascertain them, and is able to take the necessary time and pains. I see\nno sign, throughout the whole of these letters, of any wish whatever, on\nthe part of one of their writers, to ascertain the facts, but only to\ndefend practices which they hold to be convenient in the world, and are\nafraid to blame in their congregations. Of the presumption with which\nseveral of the writers utter their notions on the subject, I do not\nthink it would be right to speak farther, in an epilogue to which there\nis no reply, in the terms which otherwise would have been deserved. In\ntheir bearing on other topics, let me earnestly thank you (so far as my\nown feelings may be permitted voice in the matter) for the attention\nwith which you have examined, and the courage with which you have\nratified, or at least endured, letters which could not but bear at first\nthe aspect of being written in a hostile--sometimes even in a mocking\nspirit. That aspect is untrue, nor am I answerable for it: the things of\nwhich I had to speak could not be shortly described but in terms which\nmight sound satirical; for all error, if frankly shown, is precisely\nmost ridiculous when it is most dangerous, and I have written no word\nwhich is not chosen as the exactest for its occasion, whether it move\nsigh or smile. In my earlier days I wrote much with the desire to\nplease, and the hope of influencing the reader. As I grow older and\nolder, I recognize the truth of the Preacher's saying, \"Desire shall\nfail, and the mourners go about the streets;\" and I content myself with\nsaying, to whoso it may concern, that the thing is verily thus, whether\nthey will hear or whether they will forbear. No man more than I has ever\nloved the places where God's honour dwells, or yielded truer allegiance\nto the teaching of His evident servants. No man at this time grieves\nmore for the danger of the Church which supposes him her enemy, while\nshe whispers procrastinating _pax vobiscum_ in answer to the spurious\nkiss of those who would fain toll curfew over the last fires of English\nfaith, and watch the sparrow find nest where she may lay her young,\naround the altars of the Lord.\n\n                                    Ever affectionately yours,\n                                                         J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDIX\n\n\nMr. Ruskin having kindly entrusted me with his valuable English\nthirteenth century MS. service book, referred to p. 295, I have thought\nit would be interesting to the readers of this volume to see a little\nmore in detail some of the origins of our Litany and Collects. I think\nit will be owned that our Reformers failed to mend some of them in the\ntranslation. I am quite unversed in the reading of ancient MSS., but I\nhope the following, with the translation, will not be found incorrect. I\nhave preserved neither the contractions nor the responses repeated after\neach petition, and have changed the mediaeval \"e\" into \"ae,\" as \"terre\"\ninto \"terrae.\"--EDITOR.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nUt dompnum apostolicum et omnes gradus ecclesiae in sancta religione\nconservare digneris.\n\n    _Te rogamus, audi nos, Domine._\n\nUt episcopum nostrum et gregem sibi commissum conservare digneris.\n\n    _Te rogamus...._\n\nUt regi nostro et principibus nostris pacem et veram concordiam atque\nvictoriam, donare digneris.\n\nUt episcopos et abbates nostros et congregationes illis commissas in\nsancta religione conservare digneris.\n\nUt congregationes omnium sanctorum in tuo sancto servitio conservare\ndigneris.\n\nUt cunctum populum Christianum precioso sanguine tuo conservare\ndigneris.\n\nUt omnibus benefactoribus nostris sempiterna bona retribuas.\n\nUt animas nostras et parentum nostrorum ab eterna dampnatione eripias.\n\nUt mentes nostras ad celestia desideria erigas.\n\nUt obsequium servitutis nostrae rationabile facias.\n\nUt locum istum et omnes habitantes in eo visitare et consolari digneris.\n\nUt fructus terrae dare et conservare digneris.\n\nUt inimicos sanctae Dei ecclesiae comprimere digneris.\n\nUt oculos misericordiae tuae super nos reducere digneris.\n\nUt miserias pauperum et captivorum intueri et relevare digneris.\n\nUt omnibus fidelibus defunctis requiem eternam dones.\n\nUt nos exaudire digneris.\n\nAgnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,\n\n    _Parce nobis Domine._\n\nAgnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,\n\n    _Exaudi nos._\n\nAgnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi,\n\n    _Miserere nobis._\n\nDeus cui proprium est misereri semper et parcere suscipe deprecationem\nnostram et quos delictorum cathena constringit misericordia tuae pietatis\nabsolvas, per Jesum Christum.\n\nEcclesiae tuae Domine, preces placatus admitte ut destructis\nadversitatibus universis secura tibi serviat libertate.\n\nOmnipotens sempiterne Deus qui facis mirabilia magna solus pretende\nsuper famulum tuum episcopum nostrum et super cunctas congregationes\nilli commissas spiritum gratiae tuae salutaris et ut in veritate tibi\ncomplaceant perpetuum eis rorem tuae benedictionis infunde, per Jesum.\n\nDeus in cujus manu corda sunt regum qui es humilium consolator et\nfidelium fortitudo et protector omnium in te sperantium, da regi nostro\net reginae populoque Christiano, triumphum virtutis tuae scienter\nexcolere, ut per te semper reparentur ad veniam.\n\nPretende Domine et famulis et famulabus tuis dexteram celestis auxilii\nut te toto corde propinquant atque digne postulationes assequantur.\n\nDeus a quo sancta desideria recta consilia et justa sunt opera, da\nservis tuis illam quam mundus dare non potest pacem ut et corda nostra\nmandatis tuis et hostium ublata formidine tempora sint tua protectione\ntranquilla.\n\nUre igne sancti spiritus renes nostros et cor nostrum, Domine, ut tibi\ncorde casto serviamus et mundo corpore placeamus.\n\n\n                             TRANSLATION\n\nThat it may please Thee to keep the apostolic lord (_i.e._ the Pope) and\nall ranks of the Church in Thy holy religion.\n\n    _O Lord, we beseech Thee, hear us._\n\nThat it may please Thee to keep our bishop, and the flock committed to\nhim.\n\nThat it may please Thee to give to our king and our princes (or chief\nlords), peace, and true concord, and victory.\n\nThat it may please Thee to keep our bishops and abbots, and the\ncongregations committed to them, in holy religion.\n\nThat it may please Thee to keep the congregations of all saints in Thy\nholy service.\n\nThat it may please Thee to keep the whole Christian people with Thy\nprecious blood.\n\nThat it may please Thee to requite all our benefactors with everlasting\nblessings.\n\nThat it may please Thee to preserve our souls and the souls of our\nkindred from eternal damnation.\n\nThat it may please Thee that Thou wouldest lift up our hearts to\nheavenly desires.\n\nThat it may please Thee to make the obedience of our service reasonable.\n\nThat it may please Thee to visit and to comfort this place, and all who\ndwell in it.\n\nThat it may please Thee to give and preserve the fruits of the earth.\n\nThat it may please Thee to restrain the enemies of the Holy Church of\nGod.\n\nThat it may please Thee to look upon us with eyes of mercy.\n\nThat it may please Thee to behold and relieve the miseries of the poor\nand the prisoners.\n\nThat it may please Thee to give eternal peace to all the faithful\ndeparted.\n\nThat it may please Thee to hear us.\n\nLamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world.\n\n    _Spare us, O Lord._\n\nLamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world.\n\n    _Hear us, O Lord._\n\nLamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world.\n\n    _Have mercy on us, O Lord._\n\nO God, whose property it is always to pity and to spare, receive our\nsupplications, and by the mercy of Thy fatherly love, loose those whom\nthe chain of their sins keeps bound, through Jesus Christ our Lord.\n\nO Lord, receive with indulgence the prayers of Thy Church, that all\nadversities being overcome, it may serve Thee in freedom without fear.\n\nAlmighty, Eternal God, who alone doest great wonders, grant to Thy\nservant our bishop, and to all the congregations committed to him, the\nhealthful spirit of Thy grace; and that they may please Thee in truth,\npour out upon them the perpetual dew of Thy blessing.\n\nO God, in whose hand are the hearts of kings, who art the consoler of\nthe meek and the strength of the faithful, and the protector of all that\ntrust in Thee, give to our king and queen and to the Christian people\nwisely to manifest the glory of Thy power, that by Thee they may ever be\nrestored to forgiveness.\n\nExtend, O Lord, over Thy servants and handmaidens, the right hand of Thy\nheavenly aid, that they may draw near unto Thee with all their heart,\nand worthily obtain their petitions.\n\nKindle with the fire of Thy Holy Spirit our reins and our hearts, O\nLord, that we may serve Thee with a clean heart, and please Thee with a\npure body.\n\nO God, from whom are all holy desires, right counsels, and just works,\ngive unto Thy servants that peace which the world cannot give, that both\nour hearts (may obey) Thy commands, and the fear of the enemy being\ntaken away, we may have quiet times by Thy protection.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nUpon one of the blank leaves of this MS. are some interesting remarks\nupon its probable date, furnished by Mr. Ruskin himself. \"The style, and\npieces of inner evidence in all this book speak it clearly of the first\nhalf of the thirteenth century. The architecture is all round\narched--the roofs of Norman simplicity--unpinnacled--the severe and\nsimple forms of letter are essentially Norman, and the leaf and ball\nterminations of the spiral of the extremities, exactly intermediate\nbetween the Norman and Gothic types. The ivy and geranium leaves begin\nto show themselves long before the end of the thirteenth century, and\nthere is not a trace of them in this book.\" This evidence of early date,\nhowever, is qualified by the further statement, \"old styles sometimes\nhold on long in provincial MSS.\"\n\n                                                           J. RUSKIN.\n\n    BRANTWOOD, _April 14th, 1881_.\n\n\n                                THE END\n\n                _Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n                        _Edinburgh and London_\n\n\n\n\n                        _WORKS BY JOHN RUSKIN_\n\n     MODERN PAINTERS. In 5 vols. with all the Woodcuts, 1 Lithograph,\n     and the 89 Full-Page Steel Engravings. The text is that of the 1873\n     Edition, with Notes, and a New Epilogue. Cloth, L6, 6s. the 5\n     vols., imp. 8vo.\n\n     THE STONES OF VENICE. Complete Edition. (Imperial 8vo.) 3 vols.\n     with the 53 Plates and the Text as originally issued, and Index.\n     Cloth, L4, 4s. the 3 vols.\n\n     EXAMPLES OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF VENICE. With the Text and the 16\n     Plates as originally published. Cloth cover (unbound), atlas folio\n     (about 25 in. by 17 in.), L2, 2s.\n\n     THE POETRY OF ARCHITECTURE; or, The Architecture of the Nations of\n     Europe considered in its Association with Natural Scenery and\n     National Character. With Frontispiece in Colour, 14 Plates in\n     Photogravure, and 9 Full-Page and other Woodcuts. 4to, cloth,\n     21s.\n\n     VERONA, AND OTHER LECTURES. Delivered principally at the Royal and\n     London Institutions between 1870 and 1883. With Frontispiece in\n     colour and 11 Photogravure Plates. Med. 8vo, cloth, 15s.\n\n     ON THE OLD ROAD: a Collection of Miscellaneous Pamphlets, Articles,\n     and Essays (1834-84). In 3 vols., 8vo, cloth, 30s. (Not sold\n     separately.)\n\n     ARROWS OF THE CHACE: being a Collection of the Scattered Letters of\n     John Ruskin (1840-1880). With Preface. In 2 vols. cloth, 8vo,\n     20s. (Not sold separately.)\n\n     PRAETERITA. Outlines of Scenes and Thoughts perhaps Worthy of Memory\n     in my Past Life. Vols. I. and II. of this autobiography now ready,\n     in cloth, 13s. each, med. 8vo.\n\n     THE ART OF ENGLAND. Six Lectures delivered at Oxford in 1883. With\n     Appendix and Index. Cloth, 6s., 4to.\n\n     UNTO THIS LAST. Four Essays on the First Principles of Political\n     Economy. Tenth Edition. Cloth, 3s.; roan, gilt edges, 4s.,\n     fcap. 8vo.\n\n     SELECTIONS FROM RUSKIN. 2 vols. crown 8vo, with Index. (Sold\n     separately), cloth, 6s. each; roan, gilt edges, 8s. 6d. each.\n\n        THE FIRST SERIES (from Works written between 1843 and 1860), with\n        engraved Portrait.\n\n        THE SECOND SERIES (from Works written between 1860 and 1888), with\n        Photogravure Portrait.\n\n     FRONDES AGRESTES. Readings in \"Modern Painters.\" Thirteenth Edition.\n     Cloth, 3s.; roan, gilt edges, 4s.\n\n\n     _Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. each; roan, gilt edges, 7s. 6d. each._\n\n     SESAME AND LILIES. A Small Complete Edition, containing the Three\n     Lectures, with long Preface and Index.\n\n     MUNERA PULVERIS. Six Essays on the Elements of Political Economy.\n     Second Edition, with Index.\n\n     The EAGLE'S NEST. Ten Lectures on the Relation of Natural Science\n     to Art. Third Edition, with Index.\n\n     TIME and TIDE, by WEARE and TYNE. Twenty-five Letters to a Working\n     Man of Sunderland on Laws of Work. Fourth Edition, with Index.\n\n     The CROWN of WILD OLIVE. Four Essays on Work, Traffic, War, and the\n     Future of England. With Articles on the Economy of the Kings of\n     Prussia. Ninth Edition, with Index.\n\n     QUEEN of the AIR: a Study of the Greek Myths of Cloud and Storm.\n     Sixth Edition, with Index.\n\n     The TWO PATHS. Lectures on Art and its Application to Decoration\n     and Manufacture. Delivered in 1858-59. With New Preface and Added\n     Notes. Third Edition.\n\n     \"A JOY FOR EVER\" (and its Price in the Market). The Substance of\n     Two Lectures on the Political Economy of Art. With New Preface and\n     Added Articles. Third Edition, with Index.\n\n     LECTURES on ART, delivered at Oxford in 1870. With Preface. Seventh\n     Edition, with Index.\n\n     The ETHICS of the DUST. Ten Lectures to Little Housewives on the\n     Elements of Crystallisation. Eighth Edition.\n\n     The ELEMENTS of DRAWING. In Three Letters to Beginners, with Index.\n     Illustrated.\n\n     The STONES of VENICE: Selections for the Use of Travellers. 2 vols.\n     cloth, 5s. each. Sixth Edition, with Index.\n\n\n       _Small post 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d. each; roan, gilt edges, 10s. each,\n          complete with all the Plates._\n\n     The SEVEN LAMPS of ARCHITECTURE. The 14 Plates for this Edition\n     have been specially prepared from the larger Work. Sixth Edition.\n\n     ARATRA PENTILICI: Seven Lectures on the Elements of Sculpture. With\n     1 Engraving on Steel and 20 Autotype Plates.\n\n     VAL D'ARNO. Ten Lectures on Art of the Thirteenth Century in Pisa\n     and Florence. With 1 Steel Engraving and 12 Autotype Plates.\n\n     ARIADNE FLORENTINA: Six Lectures on Wood and Metal Engraving, and\n     Appendix. With 4 Full-Page Facsimiles from Holbein's \"Dance of\n     Death,\" and 12 Autotype Plates.\n\n     LECTURES on ARCHITECTURE and PAINTING. Delivered at Edinburgh in\n     November, 1853. With 15 Full-Page Illustrations drawn by the\n     Author.\n\n     THE HARBOURS OF ENGLAND. With the 12 Illustrations by TURNER,\n     reproduced in Photogravure, and an Introduction by T. J. WISE.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n     FORS CLAVIGERA: Letters to the Labourers and Workmen of Great\n     Britain. A New Cheap Edition, with all the Illustrations. In Four\n     Volumes, each with an Index, crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. each; roan,\n     gilt edges, 8s. 6d. each.\n\n        VOL. I. containing Letters I. to XXIV., 530 pages. [_Just out._\n        VOL. II. containing Letters XXV. to XLVIII.,\n                                          about 500 pages. [  _In May._\n        VOL. III. containing Letters XLIX. to LXXII.       }    _In the\n        VOL. IV. containing Letters LXXIII. to XCVI.       }   Autumn._\n\n     LETTERS TO THE CLERGY: On the Lord's Prayer and the Church. Edited\n     by Rev. F. A. MALLESON. Third Edition, with Additional Letters by\n     Mr. RUSKIN, crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. The last Edition, published in\n     1883, has long been out of print.\n\n     THREE LETTERS and AN ESSAY on LITERATURE, 1836-1841. Found in his\n     Tutor's Desk. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s.\n\n     LETTERS TO A COLLEGE FRIEND, 1840-1845, including an Essay on\n     \"Death before Adam Fell.\" Crown 8vo, cloth, 4s.\n\n     HORTUS INCLUSUS. Messages from the Wood to the Garden. Being\n     Letters to the Sister Ladies of the Thwaite, Coniston. Second\n     Edition. Cloth, 4s.\n\n     THE OXFORD MUSEUM. By Sir HENRY ACLAND. With Letters from JOHN\n     RUSKIN and New Preface by Sir HENRY ACLAND. With Portrait of Mr.\n     Ruskin, taken in 1893, an Engraving of Capital, and a Plan. Crown\n     8vo, cloth, 4s.\n\n     RUSKIN ON MUSIC: being Extracts from the Works of JOHN RUSKIN.\n     Intended for the Use of all interested in the Art of Music.\n\n        Edited by Miss A. M. WAKEFIELD. With Frontispiece in Colour.\n        Med. 8vo, cloth, 5s. net; half-parchment, 6s. 6d. net.\n\n     STUDIES IN RUSKIN: Some Aspects of Mr. Ruskin's Work and Teaching.\n     By EDWARD T. COOK. 13 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s.; roan, gilt\n     edges, 7s. 6d. Second Edition.\n\n        Also a Large-Paper Edition, crown 4to, price 12s. 6d.\n        Containing, in addition to the Woodcuts, 13 Autotypes of\n        Drawings by Mr. RUSKIN. With Descriptive Text.\n\n     THE PRINCIPLES OF ART. As Illustrated by Examples in the Ruskin\n     Museum at Sheffield. Compiled by WILLIAM WHITE from Mr. Ruskin's\n     Works, with some unpublished Matter and 6 Photogravure Plates. Demy\n     8vo, 10s. 6d. net.\n\n\n                     _MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS_\n\n     OLD FRENCH ROMANCES. Done into English by WILLIAM MORRIS. With an\n     Introduction by JOSEPH JACOBS.\n\n     \"King Coustans the Emperor. The Friendship of Amis and Amile. King\n     Floras and the Fair Jehane. Story of Over Sea.\" Crown 8vo, cloth,\n     gilt top, 4s. 6d. net.\n\n     THROUGH THE DOLOMITES, from VENICE to TOBLACH. A Practical,\n     Historical, and Descriptive Guide-Book. By the Rev. ALEXANDER\n     ROBERTSON, D.D. (of Venice).\n\n        With 42 Full-Page Illustrations reproduced from Pictures by W.\n        LOGSDAIL, H. G. KEASBEY, and from Photographs, with a Map of the\n        District. Also an Appendix giving Tables of Railway and Diligence\n        Stations, Times, Fares, &c., Carriage Tariffs, Charges for Guides,\n        Hotels, &c. Small crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.\n\n        This is intended to be a supplementary volume to Mr. HARE'S\n        \"Cities of Northern Italy,\" and is the only guide of the kind\n        dealing with the great highway through that beautiful mountain\n        district, which is becoming more and more the resort of\n        travellers.\n\n     \"AS OTHERS SEE US.\" A Series of Volumes giving Impressions of\n     England and of English Life by various Continental Authors. Edited\n     by JOSEPH JACOBS. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. each.\n\n     I. THE ENGLAND OF TO-DAY. From the Portuguese of OLIVEIRA MARTINS.\n     Translated by C. J. WILLDEY, 340 pages.\n\n     II. ACROSS THE CHANNEL. From the French of GABRIEL MOUREY (\"GIL\n     BLAS\").\n\n                      _OTHER VOLUMES TO FOLLOW._\n\n     BROWNING AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. On the Evidences of Christianity\n     from Browning's Point of View. By EDWARD BERDOE. Crown 8vo, cloth,\n     5s.; 256 pages.                                       [_Just out._\n\n     BROWNING STUDIES. By Bishop WESTCOTT, Professor CORSON, Mrs.\n     IRELAND, and other Members of the Browning Society. With an\n     Introduction by EDWARD BERDOE. Demy 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.\n\n     SPENSER'S \"FAERIE QUEENE.\" With over 90 Full-page Illustrations,\n     besides 150 Headings and Tailpieces by WALTER CRANE.\n\n     A limited Edition on Arnold's Hand-made Paper, large post 4to, in\n     NINETEEN Monthly Parts, price 10s. 6d. net each Part. No odd\n     Parts supplied separately.\n\n     The Text (which has been collated from Four Editions, including\n     that of 1590) is edited by THOMAS J. WISE.\n\n     BOOKS I. to IV., price L1, 11s. 6d. each; cloth, L1, 14s.\n     each.\n\n     PART XIII., with 4 Full-page Designs, 5 Canto Headings, and 4\n     Tailpieces.                                         [_Just out._\n\n     THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR. In Eight Designs. By WALTER CRANE.\n     Printed on Japanese silk paper, and mounted on cardboard. Each copy\n     is signed by Mr. CRANE and numbered. Buckram, gilt top, plates\n     guarded, imperial 4to, 21s. net.\n\n     OLD-WORLD JAPAN: Legends of the Land of the Gods. By FRANK RINDER.\n     With 34 Pictures and Cover designed by T. H. ROBINSON. Cloth, gilt\n     top, 6s.\n\n     JACOB AND THE RAVEN. By FRANCES MARY PEARD. With other Stories for\n     Children, and 39 Illustrations by HEYWOOD SUMNER. Large crown 8vo,\n     cloth, gilt edges, 5s.\n\n     THE HISTORY OF HUON OF BORDEAUX: A Legend of the Time of\n     Charlemagne. By ROBERT STEELE. With 22 Illustrations by FRED.\n     MASON. Antique Paper. Fcap. 4to, cloth, 10s. 6d.\n\n     PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. By JANE AUSTEN. With 100 Illustrations by HUGH\n     THOMSON, and an Introduction by GEORGE SAINTSBURY. Crown 8vo, cloth\n     gilt, 6s.\n\n     MARMONTEL'S MORAL TALES. Selected and Re-translated, with\n     Biographical and Critical Introduction and Notes by GEORGE\n     SAINTSBURY, and 45 Illustrations by CHRIS. HAMMOND. Crown 8vo,\n     cloth, gilt top or edges, 6s.\n\n     SIR CHARLES GRANDISON. By SAMUEL RICHARDSON. The Letters being\n     Selected and Arranged to form a connected Narrative, with\n     Biographical and Critical Introduction and Notes, by GEORGE\n     SAINTSBURY, and 60 Drawings by CHRIS. HAMMOND. In 2 vols., crown\n     8vo, cloth, gilt tops or edges, 12s.\n\n     HANS ANDERSEN'S STORIES AND FAIRY TALES. Translated by H. OSKAR\n     SOMMER. With over One Hundred Pictures and Initial Letters by\n     ARTHUR J. GASKIN. In 2 vols., large crown 8vo, 6s. each. Sold\n     separately.\n\n     A few of the Special Large-Paper Copies on Arnold's Hand-made Paper\n     still remain. Crown 4to, L2, 2s. net, the 2 vols.\n\n     LEGENDS FROM RIVER AND MOUNTAIN. Translated from the Roumanian and\n     German by CARMEN SYLVA (H.M. the Queen of Roumania) and ALMA\n     STRETTELL. With 40 Illustrations by T. H. ROBINSON. Large crown\n     8vo, cloth, gilt top, 6s.\n\n     SLAV TALES. Translated from the French of CHODSKO, and Illustrated\n     with 60 Drawings by EMILY J. HARDING. Large crown 8vo, cloth, gilt\n     top, 6s.\n\n     THE MEMORIES AND THOUGHTS OF A LIFE. By Judge O'CONNOR MORRIS. This\n     book is chiefly conversant with Ireland during the last Sixty\n     Years. Demy 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d., with Portrait.\n\n     LULLABIES OF MANY LANDS. Collected and rendered into English by\n     ALMA STRETTELL. With 77 Illustrations and specially designed Cover\n     by EMILY HARDING. Fcap. 4to, cloth, 7s. 6d.\n\n     THE DISAGREEABLE DUKE. A Christmas Whimsicality for Holiday Girls\n     and Boys. By ELLINOR DAVENPORT ADAMS. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d.\n\n     A MODEL WIFE, AND OTHER STORIES. By Mrs. COMYNS CARR. Crown 8vo,\n     cloth, 3s. 6d.\n\n     THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS PELHAM DALE. By HELEN PELHAM DALE.\n     With 4 Photogravure Portraits, 6 Plates in Colour, and other\n     Illustrations. In 2 vols., crown 8vo, cloth, 12s. 6d.\n\n     SONGS OF A PARISH PRIEST. By Rev. BASIL EDWARDS. With Woodcut of\n     Churchyard Cross. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo, parchment, 2s.;\n     cloth, 2s. 6d.\n\n     REVOLUTION AND REACTION IN MODERN FRANCE. By G. LOWES DICKINSON.\n     The Substance of Lectures dealing with the History of France, from\n     1789 to 1871. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s.\n\n     A BOOK OF PICTURED CAROLS. With 12 Full-Page Designs by Members of\n     the Birmingham Art School. Hand-printed on Hand-made Paper, 74\n     pages. Fcap. 4to, 5s.\n\n     THE GARDEN OF JAPAN: a Year's Diary of its Flowers. By F. T.\n     PIGGOTT, M.A. With Two Full-Page Plates of Japanese Flowers in\n     Colour, and other Illustrations by the Author, including some\n     Coloured Ornaments on Title-Pages. Also Four Pictures by ALFRED\n     EAST, R.I. Hand-printed, demy 4to, Japanese Vellum, 10s. 6d.\n\n                    _WORKS BY AUGUSTUS J. C. HARE_\n\n     LIFE AND LETTERS OF FRANCES, BARONESS BUNSEN. Third Edition. With\n     Portraits. 2 vols., crown 8vo, 21s.\n\n     MEMORIALS OF A QUIET LIFE. 3 vols., crown 8vo. Vols. I. and II.,\n     21s. (Nineteenth Edition); Vol. III., with numerous Photographs,\n     10s. 6d.\n\n     DAYS NEAR ROME. With more than 100 Illustrations by the Author.\n     Third Edition. 2 vols., crown 8vo, 12s. 6d.\n\n     WALKS IN ROME. Thirteenth Edition, revised. With Map. 2 vols.,\n     fcap. 8vo, cloth limp, 10s.\n\n     WALKS IN LONDON. Sixth Edition, revised. With additional\n     Illustrations. 2 vols., fcap. 8vo, cloth limp, 12s.\n\n     WESTMINSTER. Reprinted from \"Walks in London,\" as a Handy Guide.\n     120 pages. Paper covers, 6d. _net_; cloth, 1s.\n\n     WANDERINGS IN SPAIN. With 17 full-page Illustrations. Fifth\n     Edition. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.\n\n     CITIES OF SOUTHERN ITALY AND SICILY. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo,\n     10s. 6d.\n\n     CITIES OF NORTHERN ITALY. Second Edition. With Illustrations. 2\n     vols., crown 8vo, 12s. 6d.\n\n     CITIES OF CENTRAL ITALY. Second Edition. With Illustrations. 2\n     vols., crown 8vo, 12s. 6d.\n\n     SKETCHES IN HOLLAND AND SCANDINAVIA. Crown 8vo, with Illustrations,\n     3s. 6d.\n\n     STUDIES IN RUSSIA. Crown 8vo, with numerous Illustrations, 10s.\n     6d.\n\n     FLORENCE. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo, Illustrated, cloth limp, 3s.\n\n     VENICE. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo, cloth limp, 3s. With\n     Illustrations.\n\n     PARIS. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s.; or in 2 vols,\n     cloth limp, 10s. 6d.\n\n     DAYS NEAR PARIS. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s.; or\n     in 2 vols., cloth limp, 10s. 6d.\n\n     NORTH-EASTERN FRANCE. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. With Map and\n     86 Woodcuts. 532 pages.\n\n       Picardy--Abbeville and Amiens--Paris and its Environs--Arras and\n       the Manufacturing Towns of the North--Champagne--Nancy and the\n       Vosges, &c.\n\n\n     SOUTH-EASTERN FRANCE. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. With Map and 176\n     Woodcuts. 600 pages.\n\n        The different lines to the South--Burgundy--Auvergne--The\n        Cantal--Provence--The Alpes Dauphinaises and Alpes Maritimes;\n        &c.\n\n     SOUTH-WESTERN FRANCE. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. With Map and 232\n     Woodcuts. 664 pages.\n\n        The Loire--The Gironde and Landes--Creuse--Correze--The\n        Limousin--Gascony and Languedoc--The Cevennes and the Pyrenees,\n        &c.\n\n     NORTH-WESTERN FRANCE. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. With Map and 73\n     Woodcuts. 410 pages.\n\n        Normandy and Brittany--Rouen--Dieppe--Cherbourg--Bayeux--Caen--\n        Coutances--Chartres--Mont S. Michel--Dinan--Brest--Alencon, &c.\n\n     SUSSEX. With Map and 40 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s.\n\n     THE STORY OF TWO NOBLE LIVES: CHARLOTTE, COUNTESS CANNING, and\n     LOUISA, MARCHIONESS OF WATERFORD. In 3 vols. of about 450 pages\n     each. Crown 8vo, cloth, L1, 11s. 6d. 32 Plates in Photogravure from\n     Lady Waterford's Drawings, and 32 Woodcuts.\n\n        Also a Special Large-Paper Edition, with India Proofs of the\n        Plates. Crown 4to, L3, 3s. net.\n\n     THE GURNEYS OF EARLHAM: Being Memoirs and Letters of the Eleven\n     Children of JOHN and CATHERINE GURNEY of Earlham, 1775-1875, and\n     the Story of their Religious Life under Many Different Forms.\n     Illustrated with 33 Photogravure Plates and 19 Woodcuts. In 2\n     vols., crown 8vo, cloth, 25s. 712 pages.\n\n     BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES: Being Memorial Sketches of ARTHUR PENRHYN\n     STANLEY, Dean of Westminster; HENRY ALFORD, Dean of Canterbury;\n     Mrs. DUNCAN STEWART; and PARAY LE MONIAL. Illustrated with 7\n     Portraits and 17 Woodcuts. 1 vol., crown 8vo, cloth, 8s. 6d.\n\n\n           _GEORGE ALLEN, 156, CHARING CROSS ROAD, LONDON_\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\n1. P. 37: \"Mis-understanding\" is chosen to be written with a hyphen\n(\"But, at all events, it is surely the pastor's duty to prevent his\nflock from _mis_-understanding it...\")\n\n2. P. 5 of the Appendix: \"Miscellaneons\" changed to \"Miscellaneous\" in\nthe header of the page.\n\n3. The words that were chosen to be written with a hyphen: mustard-seed\n(p. 23), Janus-faced (p. 31), thorough-going (p. 116), slow-witted (p.\n116), simple-minded (p. 126), so-called (p. 126), animad-versions (p.\n245), Hand-made (p. 6, Appendix), Hand-printed (p. 7, Appendix)\n\n4. The words that were chosen to be written without a hyphen:\novercrowding (p. 91), shortcomings (p. 172), overthrow (p. 178),\nwidespread (p. 180).\n\n5. Added quotes (p. 153, '... for clerky people.\"')\n\n6. Added period after the Greek epigraph to letters VII (p. 19) and X\n(p. 36).","title":"Letters to the Clergy on the Lord's Prayer and the Church","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":55795}