On the Old Road Volume Ii Part 40

Ever affectionately yours, J. RUSKIN.

III.

BRANTWOOD, _6th July._

226. My first letter contained a Layman's plea for a clear answer to the question, "What is a clergyman of the Church of England?" Supposing the answer to this first to be, that the clergy of the Church of England are teachers, not of the Gospel to England, but of the Gospel to all nations; and not of the Gospel of Luther, nor of the Gospel of Augustine, but of the Gospel of Christ,--then the Layman's second question would be:

Can this Gospel of Christ be put into such plain words and short terms as that a plain man may understand it?--and, if so, would it not be, in a quite primal sense, desirable that it should be so, rather than left to be gathered out of Thirty-nine Articles, written by no means in clear English, and referring, for further explanation of exactly the most important point in the whole tenor of their teaching,[156] to a "Homily of Justification,"[157] which is not generally in the possession, or even probably within the comprehension, of simple persons?

Ever faithfully yours, J. RUSKIN.

IV.

BRANTWOOD, _8th July._

227. I am so very glad that you approve of the letter plan, as it enables me to build up what I would fain try to say, of little stones, without lifting too much for my strength at once; and the sense of addressing a friend who understands me and sympathizes with me prevents my being brought to a stand by continual need for apology, or fear of giving offense.

But yet I do not quite see why you should feel my asking for a simple and comprehensible statement of the Christian Gospel at starting. Are you not bid to go into _all_ the world and preach it to every creature?

(I should myself think the clergyman most likely to do good who accepted the [Greek: pase the ktisei] so literally as at least to sympathize with St. Francis' sermon to the birds, and to feel that feeding either sheep or fowls, or unmuzzling the ox, or keeping the wrens alive in the snow, would be received by their Heavenly Feeder as the _perfect_ fulfillment of His "Feed my sheep" in the higher sense.)[158]

228. That's all a parenthesis; for although I should think that your good company would all agree that kindness to animals was a kind of preaching to them, and that hunting and vivisection were a kind of blasphemy to them, I want only to put the sterner question before your council, _how_ this Gospel is to be preached either [Greek: pantachou]"

or to "[Greek: panta ta ethne] if first its preachers have not determined quite clearly what it _is_? And might not such definition, acceptable to the entire body of the Church of Christ, be arrived at by merely explaining, in their completeness and life, the terms of the Lord's Prayer--the first words taught to children all over the Christian world?

I will try to explain what I mean of its several articles, in following letters; and in answer to the question with which you close your last, I can only say that you are at perfect liberty to use any, or all, or any parts of them, as you think good. Usually, when I am asked if letters of mine may be printed, I say: "a.s.suredly, provided only that you print them entire." But in your hands, I withdraw even this condition, and trust gladly to your judgment, remaining always

Faithfully and affectionately yours, J. RUSKIN.

THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.

V.

[Greek: pater hemon ho en tois ouranois]

_Pater noster qui es in caelis._

BRANTWOOD, _10th July._

229. My meaning, in saying that the Lord's Prayer might be made a foundation of Gospel-teaching, was not that it contained all that Christian ministers have to teach; but that it contains what all Christians are agreed upon as first to be taught; and that no good parish-working pastor in any district of the world but would be glad to take his part in making it clear and living to his congregation.

And the first clause of it, of course rightly explained, gives us the ground of what is surely a mighty part of the Gospel--its "first and great commandment," namely, that we have a Father whom we _can_ love, and are required to love, and to desire to be with Him in Heaven, wherever that may be.

And to declare that we have such a loving Father, whose mercy is over _all_ His works, and whose will and law is so lovely and lovable that it is sweeter than honey, and more precious than gold, to those who can "taste" and "see" that the Lord is Good--this, surely, is a most pleasant and glorious good message and _spell_ to bring to men--as distinguished from the evil message and accursed spell that Satan has brought to the nations of the world instead of it, that they have no Father, but only "a consuming fire" ready to devour them, unless they are delivered from its raging flame by some scheme of pardon for all, for which they are to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the Son.

Supposing this first article of the true Gospel agreed to, how would the blessing that closes the epistles of that Gospel become intelligible and living, instead of dark and dead: "The grace of Christ, and the _love_ of G.o.d, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,"--the most _tender_ word being that used of the Father?

VI.

[Greek: hagiastheto to onoma sou]

_Sanctificetur nomen tuum._

BRANTWOOD, _12th July, 1879._

230. I wonder how many, even of those who honestly and attentively join in our Church services, attach any distinct idea to the second clause of the Lord's Prayer, the _first pet.i.tion_ of it, the first thing that they are ordered by Christ to seek of their Father?

Am I unjust in thinking that most of them have little more notion on the matter than that G.o.d has forbidden "bad language," and wishes them to pray that everybody may be respectful to Him?

Is it any otherwise with the Third Commandment? Do not most look on it merely in the light of the statute of swearing? and read the words "will not hold him guiltless" merely as a pa.s.sionless intimation that however carelessly a man may let out a round oath, there really _is_ something wrong in it?

On the other hand, can anything be more tremendous than the words themselves--double-negatived:

[Greek: "ou gar me katharise ... kurios"]

For _other_ sins there is washing;--for this, none! the seventh verse, Ex. xx., in the Septuagint, marking the real power rather than the English, which (I suppose) is literal to the Hebrew.

To my layman's mind, of practical needs in the present state of the Church, nothing is so immediate as that of explaining to the congregation the meaning of being gathered in His name, and having Him in the midst of them; as, on the other hand, of being gathered in blasphemy of His name, and having the devil in the midst of them--presiding over the prayers which have become an abomination.

231. For the entire body of the texts in the Gospel against hypocrisy are one and all nothing but the expansion of the threatening that closes the Third Commandment. For as "the name whereby He shall be called is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,"--so the taking that name in vain is the sum of "the deceivableness of _un_righteousness in them that perish."

Without dwelling on the possibility--which I do not myself, however, for a moment doubt--of an honest clergyman's being able actually to prevent the entrance among his congregation of persons leading openly wicked lives, could any subject be more vital to the purposes of your meetings than the difference between the present and the probable state of the Christian Church which would result, were it more the effort of zealous parish priests, instead of getting wicked _poor_ people to _come_ to church, to get wicked rich ones to stay out of it?

Lest, in any discussion of such question, it might be, as it too often is, alleged that "the Lord looketh upon the heart," etc., let me be permitted to say--with as much positiveness as may express my deepest conviction--that, while indeed it is the Lord's business to look upon the heart, it is the pastor's to look upon the hands and the lips; and that the foulest oaths of the thief and the street-walker are, in the ears of G.o.d, sinless as the hawk's cry, or the gnat's murmur, compared to the responses in the Church service, on the lips of the usurer and the adulterer, who have destroyed, not their own souls only, but those of the outcast ones whom they have made their victims.

It is for the meeting of clergymen themselves--not for a layman addressing them--to ask further, how much the name of G.o.d may be taken in vain, and profaned instead of hallowed--_in_ the pulpit, as well as under it.

Ever affectionately yours, J. RUSKIN.

VII

[Greek: eltheto e basilheia sou]

_Adveniat regnum tuum._

BRANTWOOD, _14th July, 1879._

232. DEAR MR. MALLESON,--Sincere thanks for both your letters and the proofs[159] sent. Your comment and conducting link, when needed, will be of the greatest help and value, I am well a.s.sured, suggesting what you know will be the probable feeling of your hearers, and the point that will come into question.

Yes, certainly, that "His" in the fourth line was meant to imply that eternal presence of Christ; as in another pa.s.sage,[160] referring to the Creation, "when His right hand strewed the snow on Lebanon, and smoothed the slopes of Calvary," but in so far as we dwell on that truth, "Hast thou seen _Me_, Philip, and not the Father?"[161] we are not teaching the people what is specially the Gospel of _Christ_ as having a distinct function--namely, to _serve_ the Father, and do the Father's will. And in all His human relations to us, and commands to us, it is as the Son of Man, not as the "power of G.o.d and wisdom of G.o.d,"

that He acts and speaks. Not as the Power; for _He_ must pray, like one of us. Not as the Wisdom; for He must not know "if it be possible" His prayer should be heard.

233. And in what I want to say of the third clause of His prayer (_His_, not merely as His ordering, but His using), it is especially this comparison between _His_ kingdom, and His Father's, that I want to see the disciples guarded against. I believe very few, even of the most earnest, using that pet.i.tion, realize that it is the Father's--not the Son's--kingdom, that they pray may come,--although the whole prayer is foundational on that fact: "_For_ Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory." And I fancy that the mind of the most faithful Christian is quite led away from its proper hope, by dwelling on the reign--or the coming again--of Christ; which, indeed, they are to look for, and _watch_ for, but not to pray for. Their prayer is to be for the greater kingdom to which He, risen and having all His enemies under His feet, is to surrender _His_, "that G.o.d may be All in All."

And, though the greatest, it is that everlasting kingdom which the poorest of us can advance. We cannot hasten Christ's coming. "Of the day and hour, knoweth none." But the kingdom of G.o.d is as a grain of mustard seed:--we can sow of it; it is as a foam-globe of leaven:--we can mingle it; and its glory and its joy are that even the birds of the air can lodge in the branches thereof.