her own ground, while so liberal to comprehend another’s stand-point, as was Margaret. She knew, not only theoretically, but practically, how endless are the diversities of human character and of Divine discipline, and she reverenced fellow-spirits too sincerely ever to wish to warp them to her will, or to repress their normal development. She was stern but in one claim, that each should be faithful to apparent leadings of the Truth; and could avow widest differences of conviction without feeling that love was thereby chilled, or the hand withheld from cordial aid. Especially did she render service by enabling one, — through her blended insight, candor, and clearness of understanding, — to see in bright reflection his own mental state.
It would be doing injustice to a person like Margaret, always more enthusiastic than philosophical, to attribute to her anything like a system of theology; for, hopeful, reverent, aspiring, and free from scepticism, she felt too profoundly the vastness of the universe and of destiny ever to presume that with her span rule she could measure the Infinite. Yet the tendency of her thoughts can readily be traced in the following passages from note-books and letters: —
‘When others say to me, and not without apparent
ground, that “the Outward Church is a folly which
keeps men from enjoying the communion of the
Church Invisible, and that in the desire to be helped
by, and to help others, men lose sight of the only
sufficient help, which they might find by faithful
solitary intentness of spirit,” I answer it is true, and
the present deadness and emptiness summon us to turn
our thoughts in that direction. Being now without
