would have preferred the hell of the free soul to the
heaven of the slave. To combine this intellectual interpretation of religious duty with the simple devotion
which the heart craves is not easy for anyone.
We may be very glad to find that for her it was not impossible. Her attitude between these two points of
opposition is indeed edifying; for, while she follows
thought with the daring of a sceptic, and fearlessly
reasons concerning the highest mysteries, she yet
acknowledges the insufficiency of human knowledge
for themes so wonderful, and here, as nowhere else,
bows her imperial head and confesses herself human.
One thing we may learn from what Margaret has
written on this subject, if we do not already know it,
and this is, that in any true religious experience there
must be progress and change of attitude. This progress
may be first initiated by the preponderance of thought
or by that of affection, but, as it goes on, the partiality
of first views will be corrected by considerations which
are developed by later study. Religious sincerity is,
in the end, justified in all its stages; but these stages,
separately considered, will appear more or less incomplete and sometimes even irreligious.
When first interrogated by her correspondent, she says: "I have determined not to form settled opinions at present. Loving or feeble natures need a positive religion, a visible refuge, a protection, as much in the passionate season of youth as in those stages nearer to the grave. But mine is not such. My pride is superior to any feelings I have yet experienced; my affection is strong admiration, not the necessity of giving or receiving assistance or sympathy." So much for the subjective side of the matter with Margaret at this time. The objective is formulated by her in this briefare
