The first exact question which it seems to me such an assembly may he earnestly called upon by laymen to solve, is surely axiomatic: the definition of themselves as a body, and of their business as such. Namely: as clergymen of the Church of England, do they consider themselves to be so called merely as the attached servants of a particular state? Do they, in their quality of guides, hold a position similar to that of the guides of Chamouni or Grindelwald, who, being a numbered body of examined and trustworthy persons belonging to those several villages, have nevertheless no Chamounist or Grindelwaldist opinions on the subject of Alpine geography or glacier walking: but are prepared to put into practice a common and universal science of Locality and Athletics, founded on sure survey and successful practice? Are the clergymen of the Ecclesia of England thus simply the attached and salaried guides of England and the English, in the way, known of all good men, that leadeth unto life?--or are they, on the contrary, a body of men holding, or in any legal manner required, or compelled to hold, opinions on the subject--say, of the height of the Celestial Mountains, the crevasses which go down quickest to the pit, and other cognate points of science--differing from, or even contrary to, the tenets of the guides of the Church of France, the Church of Italy, and other Christian countries? Is not this the first of all questions which a Clerical Council has to answer in open terms? Ever affectionately yours, J. RUSKIN. [Footnote 1: In answer to the proposal of discussing the subject during a mountain walk.] III. BRANTWOOD, _6th July_. 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 tenour of their teaching,[1] to a "Homily of Justification,"[2] which is not generally in the possession, or even probably within the comprehension, of simple persons? Ever faithfully yours, J. RUSKIN. [Footnote 1: Art xi.] [Footnote 2: Homily xi. of the Second Table.] IV. BRANTWOOD, _8th July_.