forfeited by the unjust cruelty or infidelity of one of the parties thereto; otherwise marriage would be practically indissoluble; but, without consent or forfeiture, it is clearly perjury to disregard this vow.

Another plank remains to be added to the platform of sexual morality. It is not only inconsistent with the higher rule given us by Jesus, but with the less rigid one given us by Confucius, and the very lightest one at all compatible with human happiness, for any man to insinuate himself into the affectious of a woman, and, under the freedom allowed him by her confidence, arouse her passionate nature, and then take advantage of this species of intoxication to induce her to do that which, in her returning sober moments, brings the tear of remorse and a burning sense of disgrace. This is not only a wanton disregard of the rule, "Do not unto others what you would not have them do to you," but is rank deception. You made this woman believe you loved her, or you could not have succeeded in your efforts; when if you really did entertain affection for her, you would not isk her happiness by any such impulsive proceeding. It is only the natural desire of the human mind to make happy those we love. The happiness of such persons is linked with our own, and their miseries fall like icy dew upon our spirits. Then do not profess love for one you have made thus wantonly wretched. You do not love her. You deserve the terrible name which modern society has made for you. You are a libertine ! Here let me digress in defence of the much-abused class contemptuously called "Free Lovers." In my search for facts and conclusions in regard to social matters, it has often happened, that I have encountered those who believe our marriage system so defective, that it should be overthrown, and that the affections and the exercise of them should not be restrained by legal enactments. Those people are confounded in the popular mind with those unprincipled creatures who are known by the names of libertines and "loose women." But not one of them that I have met deserves thus to be classified. There may be libertines, and there may be loose women, who claim to belong to the ranks of those who believe in a social revolution, that shall elevate the morals and emancipate the affections of the human family; but I have not been so unfortunate as to run against any of them. I am satisfied, too, that the men and women who have earned the popular epithet -Free Lovers--at least the great body of them—in their sexual practices, do respect the opinions and the educated prejudices which surround them. Men of this class do not persuade thoughtless and indiscreet young women -nor accomplish their ruin in the delirium of passion; nor yet do they shake the tree of marriage, if it can be charged that they take the fruit that falls through some blasting cause. The women of this class do not entice youth; they do not exchange their favors for gold or finery; nor do they seek to bear away the masculine prizes other women have

obtained, if it can be charged that they gather up prizes that have been dropped by the wayside, through some natural or acquired incompatibility. Hence, there is a distinction with a difference.

We will return to the platform of true sexual morality. We thought the planks were all in. We have omitted a very important one: no man has

right to persuade a woman, when her compliance will lessen his respect for her, or her respect for herself. If you respect her less, you have degraded her in your estimation, and must believe that she has done wrong, and you have no right to be accessory to that wrong. If you know that she respects herself less, then, too, you must admit she has com mitted a crime against her conscience, and you have been accessory to it. Again, you have no right to persuade a man's wife to do that which you would not have your own wife do; you have no right to entice your neighbor's daughter to do that which you would not have your own daughter do; you have no right to take those liberties with anybody's sister, which you would be unwilling to have taken with your own sister. This rule forms an additional plank which comes in where it properly belongs, i. e., after the paragraph speaking of the dissenters from our present social system; for I desire to have this platform of sexual morality broad enough for all sorts of people to meet thereon. I believe that it is now complete, and we will take each board, stripped of its braces and nails, and see what we have:

1st. The mutual pledge society offers, and men practically and morally take who claim its protection; 2d. The vow of mutual fidelity sacredly made in entering marriage; 3d. That humanity which leads one to respect the happiness of another; 4th. That principle of honor and morality which deters a man from degrading a woman in his own estimation, or leading her to violate her moral sense, or leading a wife, daughter, or sister belonging to somebody else, to do that which you would not be willing that your wife. daughter, or sister should do. Let the unchristian world fasten these planks together with the silver rule of Confucius, and the Christian world with the golden rule of Jesus, and each hold to the platform as respectively fastened, and we may look, with a reasonable prospect of seeing a refreshing change in the sexual morals of the human family.

あり

CHAPTER VIII.

CONCLUSION OF PART THIRD.

HE rapidly multiplying pages of this work, admonish me that I must bring Part III. to a close. Many good people who have followed me thus far from the opening chapter, may feel more than ever discouraged as to the ultimate redemption of the human family from unnatural vice, selfishness, and unhappiness. Doubtless a very considerable number of readers were not aware, till now, that the experiment of monogamic marriage was so thoroughly tried by the ancient Romans long before the Christian era. In view of the facts supplied by history, and those presented in this volume, derived from the observation and professional experience of the writer, many will say, and very truly, that we are simply living the past right over again. The founders of Rome were as austere as our Puritan fathers. They inaugurated a system of marriage which differed in no essential particulars from that observed by our Puritan fathers. And their morals springing therefrom were no less rigid. The fact that a Roman senator was censured for kissing his wife in the presence of their daughter, was paralleled in Connecticut when it was considered sinful and made unlawful for a man to kiss his wife on Sunday. The Romans, however, maintained the rigidity of their marriage system, five times longer than the age of our nation; when, finally, the reaction came, and, following the reign of the Cæsars, the corruption of the empire far outweighed the virtue of the republic. Our reaction is coming, unless averted in some sensible way, in an incomparably shorter period,-if, indeed, it be not already upon us. And are we to learn nothing from the past? Aside from the political and other causes which mainly led to the downfall of the ancient republic, it is plainly manifest that there was a tremendous rebound from the unnaturally rigid sexual morality of the Roman fathers. This revolution was attempted to be controlled by Christianity upon the dawn of the Christian era, when again the opposite extreme was reached in precept, but not in practice. When the church first adopted and tried to enforce the pagan idea, originated by Pythagoras and Plato, that the passions should be subverted, and

then, when it so far progressed in this direction as to conclude that sexual intercourse was the original sin-the crime which caused the fall-the most strenuous efforts were made to break down, not only every system of marriage, but to suppress the amative passions of men and women. These efforts, instead of having their intended effect, were followed by the grossest excesses everywhere, so that the clergy were forbidden to visit the houses of single women and widows; and even the nunneries became the abodes of harlots. When the church gave up the attempt to control the laity, it hoped to succeed with the priesthood, by concentrating its ascetic efforts upon it. But here it signally failed, and the open debauchery of priests was sufficient to attract the observation and denunciation of the civil authority.

The rise of Protestantism and its license to its clergy to marry, and finally the benefits seen to arise from this measure, shamed the Roman priesthood into at least the outward appearance of virtue, and now the clergy of all denominations, including the Catholic as a body, preserve at least an exterior of respectability. The fact that those adopting the clerical profession are men upon whom all eyes are turned for emulation or criticism, renders it necessary that they maintain the utmost degree of circumspection. Besides the occasional illustrations publicly presented to show that they do not always succeed in this, outside of their ranks, as already exhibited in various places, there are eruptions upon the social cuticle, which show that there is something wrong constitutionally. This wrong I believe to proceed from an attempt by moralists to avoid the recognition of the legitimacy and purity of the amative passion, and their refusal to provide for its complete and natural gratification. I have already repeatedly called attention to the disparity existing between the demands of nature and the provisions made for them by society. Read the "Demerits of Marriage," as presented in a preceding chapter, and give the suggestions therein made a little reflection. Also give due consideration to the essay on the influence of the sexual organs on health, and do not omit to look over the essay on "Sexual Starvation." If, then, the reader agrees with the writer upon what nature requires, let him examine our marriage regulations, and see how far short they fall of what is needed to make mankind honest, contented, and virtuous. No objection can be made by any decent person to the enactment of the most rigid laws, and to the imposition of the heaviest penalties upon those who may be detected in the practice of unnatural vice, such as self-pollution, sodomy, and sexual connection with the lower animals. But all legal measures should carefully discriminate between these vices, and the natural gratification of an appetite which not only ministers to the physical health, good-nature, and happiness of mankind, but preserves our race from utter extinction. The Roman thers made a mistake in trying to establish a rigid system of monogamy and

their experiment ended in a revolution which subverted all principles of personal honor, and extinguished all landmarks of sexual morality. So great was the power of public opinion, no legal measures were necessary to enforce the strictest monogamy the world ever saw, but when the reaction began, the most stringent laws and terrible penalties could not control the people, and it is probable that the intrusion of courts of law in the family acceler ated the rebound.

While reading the proof-sheets of these pages, the writer finds, by an article in the New York World, that there is quite an unusual perturbation at this time in the public mind upon the marriage question. It seems "that the growing laxity of the marriage tie, and ease with which divorces are now obtained in nearly every State in the Union, have called out on the one side such men as President Woolsey to declaim against the dangers which threaten this social relation; and on the other side, there is," this writer alleges, a regular school of writers and religionists who boldly announce their opposition to the marriage institution." He states that there is a large weekly journal in Chicago avowedly devoted to the abolition of marriage and the substitution of the largest license, and that the contributors to this journal are generally women. He remarks, too, that

there are any quantity of novels making their appearance in the West, covering, with the thin disguise of the story, a pronounced advocacy of the free-love doctrine. "The supporters of the new organ, and the new school of anti-marriage literature," continues this writer, "may be counted by the thousands at the West; and at the East, even, Mrs. Stanton has written a pamphlet which more than insinuates that the existing laws relating to divorce are necessarily bad, because they are wholly framed by men." It may be added, that the newspapers are just now criticising a new work, claimed to be written by a Christian philanthropist, which defends polygamy on Christian principles. It hails from Boston, and, judging from the comments of the journals upon it, I should infer that the name of the writer is not given. Who is he? Let him come out from his ambuscade. Let anybody who has any thing to say stand up boldly and proclaim it. The World writer exhibits some solicitude after giving his testimony. "The positive advance the new and dangerous doctrine is making, and the hold it is taking upon large masses of the people," he says, "is a matter of grave import to the future of this country, and," in his opinion, "the subject commends itself to the philosophers and preachers who are interested in our social progress."

It strikes me, that however radical may be the views expressed by the writers alluded to, they should be hailed as valuable contributions to social literature, and the objections of President Woolsey, and all others who oppose them, should also receive the consideration of all candid minds. It