The question which I propose to discuss is - Does Sexual Chastity confine every man and every woman to the "pairing" order, or to be exclusively dual in the ultimates of love? Does normal and pure love require this? Or, still more abridged, and just as well understood as now explained - Should marriage always be exclusive and dual?"

I take the negative of the last question as now stated. Before proceeding to the argument, let me remind the reader that I came first to my present views of the subject from a careful study of the great "fundamental doctrine " of the Christ, as found in the sum of all revealed commands. - In his love doctrines - (See Matt. xxii. 37 - 40.) Secondly, I found the same in studying the laws of the mind and the nature of love, as read in the mind. My own choice seems to incline me to make the last first, and the first last; so I will first argue from the mind. In the argument, I intend to show, to a mental and moral demonstration, that normal and truthful love cannot be exclusive or dual. 1 shall then draw the inference as one self-evident, that the ultimates of love should harmonize with, and fairly represent their source. That the outward manifestations of love should truly represent its inward life and attractions. By normal and truthful love, I mean, when the mind is perfectly balanced, and the mental in freedom of wisdom controls the affectional - or at least the affectional is properly balanced by and harmonizes with the mental.

I trust this carefulness in explanation will save much misunderstanding and much repetition in the future.

I say, then, in reasoning from the laws of mind, I cannot find truth at the bottom of the common Marriage doctrine. For convenience, let me speak as if personal - as I develop in my sentiments and faculties, I find myself possessed of love - an attraction to and affinity for other persons. I find the nature and intensity of this love or affinity to depend upon two things - two persons - myself and the object loved. I am, in the sense in which I am speaking, comparatively a fixed fact in always loving and having an affinity for certain attributes of other human beings. I love mentality. Some minds more than others, because their mentality is more in harmony with the particular development of mine - but I can love no one mind exclusively. For every other person shares in a degree in the same faculties. If I love mind, to love one mind exclusively from another is impossible. All mind is more or less alike. As minds vary, my love may vary. Absolute, exclusive love, in this case, if it were possible, would be a natural, more properly an unnatural, falsehood. Truth, or the nature of the mind requires me to love every like attribute of mind with like love, and the intensity should be governed by the size of the attribute, and my ability to appreciate it.

This would be truth for me.

I love morality, spirituality and religion - here too the same law prevails. I am bound to be impartial in my love up to my ability. Truthfulness, as well as the nature of the mind, forbids that I should concentrate entirely and exclusively upon any one moralist, spiritualist, or religionist. Nature did not make me sectarian. At least I cannot be when I am finished and perfected. Again I say here, I cannot love all alike - all are not alike - nor can I perfectly appreciate all. Yet I cannot love with a rational, truthful love the same moral or religious attribute, found in the same quantity, more in one than in another. It would be unnatural and false. I have adhesiveness, so I love all persons socially - all, male and female - but here I cannot love all alike, and yet I must from necessity love all like attributes alike. Truth requires impartiality. I cannot be exclusive, since all have like social attributes.

I have amativeness, so I love woman - possibly I may love her, in this sense, exclusively from man; she is possessed of something different from man mentally, spiritually and physically. But I cannot love any one woman exclusively from any other woman. I love all women as such - not alike in mental, spiritual or physical sexuality; far from it; nor can 1 be exclusive and concentrate my affections, except I do violence, first to my reason, and then to my affections. My love may vary towards different women, as they vary in their mental, spiritual, religious, social and physical womanhood, and as I have more or less ability to appreciate them, or as they are more or less in harmony with either or all these points with my own particular taste; but I cannot love one in the many exclusively from her sisters. My opponents harmonize with me, in precept at least, in relation to all these manifestations of love, except the physical. They will commend this general and universal state of the affections, and condemn partiality and exclusiveness.

But when the whole man develops into harmony with itself, and with every other man and every other woman - when the same universal law is allowed to prevail through all the affections, they are shocked with the impropriety; and yet it is as unnatural to exclusively concentrate the love of the physical as it is that of any other part of the mind. In this our attractions vary, but I insist, it is a natural impossibility to make them exclusive. We must first annihilate or uncreate what God has created. In this sense man is attracted to woman as such, and the same of woman to man. This love for the physical of the opposite sex, and attraction to it, is alike universal in its nature with every other love. As all my previous arguments to sustain the necessary universality of love, apply equally here, I will not repeat them. There are laws to govern mind, as absolute as those to govern matter. The forest tree can be bent by some material cause; so can the affections, by a power of mind or will; but the crooked tree, or the contracted and warped affections, are exceptional and less harmonious. I find no marriage in nature, as the law of marriage has ever been taught us. I do find the marriage of man to woman. "They twain make one flesh," says Nature, in all her teaching on this subject.

The Good Book, in its higher meaning, responds to Nature's lessons. No truth can be more clearly taught. Without this oneness, this union, either man or woman is but a fraction - a most unnatural fraction. This must always be true - in the next world as well as in this - unless we are to be partially annihilated to fit us for an entrance there. This to us is the extreme of folly. So our reason in this harmonizes with the Revelations of Swedenborg and the Spirits.

I agree with Mr. Ballou and others, that without marriage, the material union of the sexes is more or less adulterous; that conjugal, or, as Swedenborg would write it, "conjugial love," is essential to the purity of such relations. I accept of the latter's description of this love, of its nature, but I deny that such love is confined to the one - or necessarily exclusive. I believe a well developed man may and should love woman in general, so far as she is the woman of creation, and upright and lovely, (and he could not truthfully love the one without this,) more purely, more justly, more disinterestedly and more conjugally than the most devoted dual lover often feels. I accept of the Love Doctrines of marriage from my inmost soul, having known, and knowing them, but I deny that they are exclusive.