Because all of the higher and spiritual faculties are more or less non-exclusive, and in that sense universal in their nature, it does not follow as a practical fact that they should ultimate themselves to the same extent. This is naturally impossible. I love all the human brotherhood, non-exclusively, as I have used this latter word in this discussion, yet I pass multitudes with a bare recognition. I carry out no particular acts of kindness, or "special and kind attentions." It is not necessary or called for. So a man may love woman as such, with a true universal, or non-exclusive connubial love, and it be impossible and undesirable to so universally consummate this love; while absolute exclusiveness would be unnatural in either case - in any of the loves. There are mental laws and circumstances which should harmoniously settle each man's actual and more intimate associates, in his acts of social enjoyment, or acts of charitable utility. And yet he is not absolutely exclusive in any or all of these faculties. The well-developed mind is never universal or absolutely exclusive as to his associates in relation to the human brotherhood - or in any of the social or love relation.

These remarks have had reference to some part of Mr. Ballou's reply, which I thought it not necessary to quote.

By the better laws of civilization, with woman in general, I may bow the knee before God in social prayer in freedom; I may enjoy mental repasts with her in freedom. Benevolence may give to her the fruits of acquisitiveness in freedom; charity and justice may call to their aid all the power and utility in destructiveness and combativeness for the protection and defense of all women in freedom; I may gratuitously supply the wants of inhabitiveness and alimentiveness in her in freedom; I may give the adhesive kiss to all in freedom; I may supply any child from my paternal fount in freedom : I may supply my own paternal desire by the caressing or adoption of any child in freedom. What may we not do and enjoy innocently in freedom, by the laws of the Fowlers, Mr. Ballou and civilization? Every thing except a fractional part of a sentiment called ama-tiveness, all else is non-exclusive, or absolutely free in a healthy state, or under the control of the higher man. For every other freedom is allowed to be health, and health is allowed to be freedom. For every other absolute exclusiveness is considered a disease. For this fraction of the brain, anything but entire exclusiveness is disease, per se.

This fraction is cut off from its other and higher half, and held in bonds as a criminal. "It has been a criminal." Well, why not put the whole man in bonds? Every faculty, and every part of a faculty, has been wo-fully criminal. Why not rush back to slavery and the dark ages for our laws of safety? "All men, except those who govern the rest, are, per se, dangerous in freedom!" It requires strong proof to sustain such monstrous inconsistency. The past, with her pall of blackness still hanging over her, cannot prove it. The future will laugh at it with pity and astonishment.