Those who peruse the epistles will readily perceive that they present a very high ideal, yet we do not think they can fairly be pronounced harsh. He does not speak in a tone of asperity. He saw far into the human heart, looked with a piercing eye through the disguises of sin, could follow with unexampled clearness the turnings and twistings and lurkings of selfishness. Though the severest of censors, he is at the same time the most pitying. He regards human error with indulgent tenderness, and weeps over it as Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Echoes of the Stoic philosophers—Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca—will undoubtedly be found in these letters. Indeed, a very considerable and rather curious parallel has been drawn between Fénelon and Seneca; which only shows the permanence of the principles that regulate the union between God and the soul under all skies and creeds. There is a close similarity between these letters and those of Francis of Sales, who wrote on the same themes; for the two saw eye to eye. The effusions of either Francis, although adapted primarily to a different communion and time, can be recommended almost unqualifiedly to-day to that small class—it will always be a small class—who set themselves, with an aroused intelligence, a high appreciation of the nature of the task before them, and an intense determination, to realize, through all available and appointed means, the closest possible approximation to perfect union with the Divine. Our criticisms of Fénelon’s letters are but few, and yet a little note of warning should undoubtedly be sounded. No one should read them who is not prepared to think for himself, to use a vigorous common-sense, and to select for entire observance only those precepts which commend themselves to his mind as being in complete accord with the Scripture and with the most judicious of other spiritual advisers. Almost everything he finds will, we believe, thus commend itself. But there will be an occasional use of language before which he will pause and make a note of question or dissent. There will be unguarded expressions which need explanation. Perhaps the chief words which he will find cause to challenge will be those of most frequent occurrence—self and self-love. Fénelon does not use these terms quite accurately, and whoever takes them literally will be led into trouble. Where he says self-love he almost always means selfishness, which, in our modern nomenclature, is quite a different thing, being the inordinate, excessive, or forbidden love of self, such a regard for the interests and rights of self as disregards the interests and rights of other people. This latter is always wrong, of course. But self-love, strictly speaking, is in itself right, perfectly innocent, and of great importance to retain. It is essential to our preservation and prosperity, one of the most vital ingredients in our constitution. Fénelon, we think, never recognizes this meaning of the word, never