I would preface the few remarks I wish to make upon this letter by an
extract from a letter just received from a dear good friend:
"I have already read these deeply interesting letters five times.
They are like 'the foam-globes of leaven.' I must say they have
exercised my mind very much. Things in them which at first seem
rather startling, prove on closer examination to be full of deep
truth. The suggestions in them lead to 'great searchings of heart.'
There is much with which I entirely agree; much over which to
ponder. What an insight into human nature is shown in the remark
that though we are so ready to call ourselves 'miserable sinners'
we resent being accused of any special fault!
"S. B."
By the side of this, it will be instructive, though strange, if I place
an extract from another note from one whom I have long known and highly
esteemed; and it will be seen what a singular "discerner of hearts" and
"divider of spirits" is this series of letters:--
"If they are really meant _au serieux_, I could not express any
opinion of them without implying a reflection upon you also, as you
seem to endorse them so fully. I prefer, therefore, to say merely
that, as a whole, they offer one of the most remarkable instances I
ever met with of the old adage, 'Ne sutor ultra crepidam.'"[12]
[12] Let me say here, once for all, that I have already three times
had this proverb quoted against Mr. Ruskin; and no proverb could be
more remote from the purpose. For while it is the shoemaker's
business, _as a livelihood_, to make shoes, a painter's to paint
pictures, the merchant's to sell goods, and perhaps Mr. Ruskin's to
write books which every one reads, _religion is everybody's
business_. Christian men and women, of all classes and professions,
make the Bible their study, because of its inestimable importance;
and who shall say that they are not absolutely right? For my part I
should be very glad to hear that my bootmaker was a religious man:
his boots would be none the worse for it. I hope the _sutor_ will
be brought in no more, unless he can appear with a better grace.
In spite of this I retain all my old high opinion of the writer of these
lines, and feel convinced that he will soon think very differently.
Yes, it is as my first correspondent has said, "Things which at first
seem startling, on examination prove to be full of deep truth." In the
short compass of this Letter III. lies enfolded a vast question, which,
in the midst of the friction and conflict of ages of strife, has been
shuffled away into odd corners, to be brought out into life only now and
then, when a man is born into the world who sees what few will even
glance at, and who will say out that which ought to be spoken, though
but few may listen. What is the question which is put here so tersely
and so pointedly? It is this, which I am only putting a little
differently, not with the most distant idea of improving upon Mr.
Ruskin's felicitous touches; but, because expressed in twofold fashion,
what has escaped one may strike another in a different form.
Is a clergyman of the Church of England a teacher of the doctrine and
practice and discipline of the Church of England within her limits only,
narrow as they are, when compared with Christendom? or is there not
rather a wider, more comprehensive Church yet--that of Christ upon
earth--which he must serve, which he must preach, in forgetfulness of
the limited boundaries within which by his education and his ordination
vows he is _apparently_ bound to remain? Is there not enough of
Christianity common to all the Christian nations upon earth, and which
ought to be made the subject of teaching to the ignorant and the
castaway? Is it quite a right thing that the natives of Madagascar, for
instance, should see parties of missionaries arriving amongst them: one,
in all the gorgeous trappings and with all the elaborate ritual of Rome;
another in rusty black coats and hats and dirty white neckties,
repudiating all but the very barest necessary ceremonial; a third,
possibly disunited in itself, coming as High Churchmen or Low Churchmen,
with differing peculiarities? Is this an edifying spectacle for the
Malagasy? And can the Gospel be preached as effectually in this highly
diversified fashion as it would be with the simplicity of a reasonable
and just sufficiently elastic uniformity?
Coming before many people of infinite diversity of mind, it cannot be
doubted that Christianity must necessarily take a variety of forms, to
suit different intelligences, and adapt itself to differing situations.
But in all this large variety of forms of religion, ranging from mere
paganism at one end, just a little unavoidably altered by the contact of
Christianity, and at the other extremity a pure religion, but refined
and intellectual, I do not see exactly what is the form of Christianity
which the Church of England is to preach to the masses at home and
abroad. As long as England takes the Gospel to the ignorant in such
infinitely diversified forms, it is as if an incapable general were to
divide his forces preparatory to an assault upon a compact and
well-defended stronghold.
It is enough to make one weep with vexation and humiliation to see what
sort of religion would be presented to the world if some who claim to
have all truth on their side could have their own way. I say to have the
truth on their side,--which is a very different thing from being on the
side of truth. There is even a new religion--for it is certainly not the
old--growing popular with "thinkers," who write and read in the three
great half-crown monthlies, which is evolved in the most curious
variety out of their inner consciousness by religion-makers, whose
fertile brains are the only soil that can bring forth such productions.
What is the vast uneducated world to do with these extraordinary forms
of religion which are as many-sided and many-faced as their inventors?
Now Mr. Ruskin and many others see this state of things with pity and
compassion, and ask, "Cannot this Gospel of Christ be put into such
plain words and short terms as that a plain man may understand it?" Why
is there no such easy summary provided by authority to teach the poor
and simple? The Apostles' Creed is good for its own end and purpose, but
it requires great expansion to be made to include Gospel teaching, and
it contains nothing practical. The Thirty-nine Articles are not even
intended (as Mr. Ruskin by some oversight seems to think they are) to be
a summary of the Gospel. We have no concise and plain, clear and
intelligible form of sound words to answer this most important end. The
Church Catechism, from old associations, belongs to childhood.
Every reasonable person must agree with Mr. Ruskin, that there could be
no harm, but much good, in Christians making a little less of their
Churchmanship, and a little more of their broad Christianity.