“The simple outlines of universal doctrine and morality which are required by poor children are not affected by the variations to which investigation conducts minds of more scope.”

“I am afraid such variations may often reach the foundation.”

“Now, Miss Williams, I am sure you must often have heard it observed how when it comes to real practical simple teaching of uninstructed people, villagers or may be heathens, the details of party difference melt away, and people find themselves in accordance.”

“True, but there I think party differences in the Church, and even the variations between Christian sects are concerned, both being different ways of viewing the same truth.  These may, like the knights in the old fable, find that both were right about the shield, both have the same foundation.  But where the foundation is not the same, the results of the teaching will not agree.”

“Every one agrees as to morality.”

“Yes, but do all give a motive sufficient to enforce the self-denial that morality entails?  Nay, do they show the way to the spiritual strength needful to the very power of being moral?”

“That is begging the question.  The full argument is whether the full church, say Christian system, exactly as you, as we hold it, is needful to the perfection of moral observance.  I don’t say whether I assent, but the present question is whether the child’s present belief and practice need be affected by its teacher’s dogmatic or undogmatic system.”

“The system for life is generally formed in childhood.  Harvest depends on seed time.”

“And after all,” added Rachel, “we have no notion whether this poor man be not precisely of your own opinions, and from their fruits I am sure you ought to claim them.”

“Their blossoms if you please,” laughed Ermine.  “We have not seen their fruits yet.”

“And I shall take care the fruits are not nipped with the blight of suspicion,” said Rachel, good-humouredly.

However, after driving Ermine home, and seeing her lifted out and carried into the house by her sister, Rachel did send the carriage back by the groom and betake herself to Villars’s shop, where she asked for a sight of the “Clergy List.”  The name of Mauleverer caught her eye, but only one instance of it appeared, and he was a cathedral canon, his presentation dated in 1832, the time at which, judging from appearances, the object of her search might have been born; besides, he rejoiced in the simple name of Thomas.  But Rachel’s search was brought to an abrupt conclusion by the issue of Mr. Mauleverer himself from the reading-room within the shop.  He bowed and passed by, but Rachel for the life of her could not hinder a burning colour from spreading to the very tips of her ears; so certain did she feel that she was insulting him by her researches, and that he perceived them.  She felt absolutely ashamed to see him the next day, and even in her dreams was revolving speeches that might prove that though cautious and clear-sighted, she was neither suspicious nor narrow-minded.