d one or two other clerical societies; (2) in the
_Contemporary Review_ of December 1879; (3) in a volume (Strahan & Co.,
1880) entitled "The Lord's Prayer and the Church," and containing also
various replies to Mr, Ruskin's letters, and an epilogue by way of
rejoinder by Mr. Ruskin himself. This volume was edited by Mr. Malleson,
with whose concurrence Mr. Ruskin's contributions to it are reprinted
here.--ED.]

[Footnote 154: Called Letter II. in the Furness pamphlet,--where a note
is added to the effect that there was a previous unpublished
letter.--ED.]

[Footnote 155: In answer to the proposal of discussing the subject
during a mountain walk.--F. A. M.]

[Footnote 156: Art, xi.]

[Footnote 157: Homily xi. of the Second Table.]

[Footnote 158: "_Arrows of the Chace._"]

[Footnote 159: See postscript to this letter.--ED.]

[Footnote 160: Referring to the closing sentence of the third paragraph
of the fifth 'ter, which _seemed_ to express what I felt could not be
Mr. Ruskin's full meaning, I pointed out to him the following sentence
in "Modern Painters:"--

"When, in the desert, Jesus was girding Himself for the work of life,
angels of life came and ministered unto Him; now, in the fair world,
when He is girding Himself for the work of death, the ministrants come
to Him from the grave; but from the grave conquered. One from the tomb
under Abarim, which _His_ own hand had sealed long ago; the other from
the rest which He had entered without seeing corruption."

On this I made a remark somewhat to the following effect: that I felt
sure Mr. Ruskin regarded the loving work of the Father and of the Son to
be _equal_ in the forgiveness of sins and redemption of mankind; that
what is done by the Father is in reality done also by the Son; and that
it is by a mere accommodation to human infirmity of understanding that
the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed to us in language, inadequate
indeed to convey divine truths, but still the only language possible;
and I asked whether some such feeling was not present in his mind when
he used the pronoun "His," in the above passage from "Modern Painters,"
of the Son, where it would be usually understood of the Father; and as a
corollary, whether, in the letter, he does not himself fully recognize
the fact of the redemption of the world by the loving self-sacrifice of
the Son in entire concurrence with the equally loving will of the
Father. This, as well as I can recollect, is