At first, our opponents, like Mr. Ballou, contended that always and everywhere, every act of variety was, per se, "more or less adulterous." Long since many of these have arrived nearly to Mr. D.'s position, that various orders might have been right in the past, and possibly to some extent in the present. But these now contend lustily that "any how, they know the exclusively dual is the highest, and the final of connubial love." On the whole, this is a real gain in the right direction. We took our pen to rout them from this last stand point, and we are sanguine of final success. Here is their last breast-work, and here will come the death-struggle of exclusiveness. Mr. Davis, a noble and an honorable leader, has taken his position in this gap. We hope and believe he will never surrender this post, while he has any philosophical ammunition left to defend it. We court the discussion of this last question. What is the highest order of connubial love? This book contains our argumentative reply to the question.

Will our opponents give us as thorough and as direct a defence of their position, if the thing is possible.

Mr. Davis defines marriage to be "the union of the essence of two atoms." We add, the union of two or more atoms. There is a duality in marriage; it is between the two sides - the male and the female atmospheres. I have no doubt but that Mr. D. sees this duality. He sees a healthful harmony in the joining of the two - a man and a woman. We see a still greater harmony in the marriage of many.

Even much of the higher harmony of marriage, which he does teach, or foretell, he carries to the other sphere for its practical realization. Yet all of it, and more will be experienced here, and on this earth. Like Paul in his "third heavens," and Swedenborg in his " celestial spheres," he sees things there, which are but clairvoyant views of things to come, and to be enjoyed here. He sets untruthful bounds to the present, and coming attainments on our earth.

"Repulsion," I believe, is considered by Mr. D., as a negative, or a less attraction, and designed to regulate the various degrees of attraction. At least, this is our view. And should we admit that those on a widely different plane may never be so far attracted to each other, as to desire and normally enjoy all of the rights of connubial love, it is still true that those on the same plane, and of "like temper-ment," may. Such cannot in freedom, be entirely exclusive. That which joins them to one, will join to all on the same plain, and of the same "temperament." The ability to appreciate the one, gives the ability to appreciate all others on the same plain and of the same temperament.

Mr. Davis teaches us that the best we can do at present, in seeking a connubial mate, is, if possible, to reach the "spiritual plane," and see that the "central temperaments" meet in harmony. Then by effort, and a careful culture, all others, or any less degree of repulsion, can be brought into submission, and perhaps at last into love, and so render 11 the union eternal. If these repulsions are healthy and normal, this course, so far destroys spontainety; and, like Mr. Wright, he, in this manner, detracts from individuality, for the sake of unity. If these repulsions are unhealthy, we give the same advice, and add more to it. We advise all to at least overcome these little repulsions, so far as they are abnormal, between all on the same plane. But never, in any case, or for any reason, to suppress or oppress a healthy repulsion. Free Love neither requires nor allows any such sacrifice. It leaves unabridged the most perfect spontaniety and individuality. The centrifugal force is as important as the centripetal, and we would leave all natural forces alike free in matter or in mind.

Yet we insist even here, that as benevolence can do every other act of utility in harmony with its general law of justice and mercy, over these lesser repulsions, without harming them, so the same is true, to some extent, on this subject. There are various good motives which may wisely lead to the ultimates of love. A degree of need, mutual and normal enjoyment, and the creation of offspring, are among them. In the first and second cases, at least, if the two do not mix atmospheres any farther than they harmonize, no harm is done. This is sometimes possible. Not always. As I shall not take the room to prove this last proposition, the reader can take or leave it as it seems to be truth or otherwise to him.

I am sure Mr. Davis will not tell us that God ever made two persons of the opposite sex, who were entire attraction, and no repulsion. Then nature never perfectly married two. But nature may, and probably does, create a perfect fitness for each and for all in the race; then why not let each find that supply in the race? Why try to improve upon his works? Why not allow a perfect spontaniety, and not warp each individuality for the sake of unity? Why not allow the race to progress to a higher and more perfect harmony, in a perfect spontaniety? Why marry any man, real man, harmonial man, one iota beyond his normal and spontaneous attractions? Why labor to assimilate the one to the other more than is strictly natural? Let each and every person differ from me eternally, so far as they were made to differ. Universal love will harmonize and supply all. I shall find every phase of marriage somewhere, and every mental, moral and material want supplied. I have no right to ask or expect a perfect "rest " in any one woman, but I have such a right in the race - in woman. So I give myself to woman.

If I find much more "rest" in some one woman, than in any other - and this is natural - I may and should take and enjoy it.

On page 411, Mr. Davis comes directly to the question of a "variety" in love. But he does this in reply to Dr. Nichols. For two reasons, I think it unnecessary for me to quote much, or write much in reviewing it.

First, I see from "Nichols' Journal" of last month, that the Dr. has replied to him in a later edition of his work on marriage. Second, Mr. Davis resolves the question of a variety in love, into the question of the "fickleness, unsteadiness," or otherwise, of love. On this, I certainly have no controversy with Mr. Davis. I doubt whether Dr. Nichols has. We all admit that love, in an undeveloped state, is some times fickle. I am sure it will not be so in true harmony. Mark, I only contend that we may love more than one. I think I do not favor divorce, in the present state of the world, as much as Mr. Davis or Mr. Wright. They allow a variety by a succession of persons; I more by a succession of acts, but without "putting away." 1 do not like "putting away." It often partakes of a much greater degree of injustice than entire exclusiveness. Nature does not often, after forming or permitting so entire a union, absolutely and entirely put away. As a fact, I never advised the separation of man and wife. Perhaps, in a few cases, more wisdom might have lead me to do this. On the whole, I do not generally approve of too violently disturbing past and present relations, to get to the better which we may justly hold in promise.

Sometimes it may be wise.