But to his book. We did not allude to Mr. Ballou, when speaking in our preface of reform writers on marriage. We considered him, on this subject, and many others, more nearly allied to the past. In most of his writings he stereotypes to the teachings of an age, almost two thousand years ago, and seldom to the higher law and more spiritual truths of that. Still farther back, he "builds tabernacles to Moses and Elias," as well as to "Christ," This he does to the law phase of Christ's teachings. For Christ "was made under the law," and spoke under it, and in parables. He wore the " veil," as did Moses, to still hide from the many the higher glories of the coming gospel. He still preached law to the "lawless and disobedient." (I presume Mr. Ballou will consider the above as a compliment to him. And it realy stand so in the eyes of the majority.) But we shall proceed to our views of his case, and his course. He talks much in his book of going back to "fundamental principles." The real import of this, to us, is simply his opinion as to the main truths of the Bible. To me, he seems wholly incapable of going below and above all opinions, to the absolute laws of mind; incapable of going back of all revealed religion, to the Author of it; of simply reading nature in nature's book.

He has been called "the logician." He is comparativly logical in discussing theology, so called, but never upon the deep principles of philosophy. He is superficial, and never at home, in the latter. On turning to the pages of his book (see 361) on which he records his objections to Free Love, I was disappointed. I had forgotten that, after so fully denouncing our views, he did not even write the first sentence of argument to disprove them from the laws of mind. If such is there, we have failed to see it. Such as it is, I will give it a passing notice. And yet, I should not, in my present book, if it had emanated from an author of less note.

Mr. Ballou, 1, Gives his objections to Polygamy, in which we are happy to agree with him.

"2, Promiscuity of intimate sexual communion is revolting and degrading to pure minded loves. It is unnatural. It comes from perverted amativeness, despotism, artificial education, sophistication, or arbitrary custom." * * * By "promiscuity," Mr. B. means the least deviation from entire exclu-siveness. More of the same sort follows our quotation. We simply reply to it all, there is not absolutely and necessarily one word of truth in it. Lust is "revolting" always "to a pure minded Lover; - " Love never. We give assertion for assertion.

"3, Sexual promiscuity inevitably tends to moral and social disorder. It sophisticates, perverts and demoralizes its practitioners. It stimulates and confirms the lust of variety." * * * *

We are not required to do more than to pronounce all this false. Mr. Ballou always and everywhere takes the whole point of difference between him and the friends of Free Love for granted. Namely: That the attraction for a variety is lust: "The lust of variety." Before this, he has taken his position, and pronounced every such act of variety "adultry, per se." Here, in the presence of his book, I again challenge him or his friends, to show the first line of his, of direct argument of any kind, to prove his position; or to show one sentence where it is not taken for granted. He begs the entire question. In view of his position in the age as a professed reformer, and of his long and repeated denunciation of our principles on this subject, we have a right to ask and expect more.

He has written what he, and perhaps some of his friends, may consider argument. In justice to him, the reader should know that he has abundantly appealed to the feelings and instincts of men. To what we shall call, to a greater or less extent, undeveloped, sickly, and perverted mind. He becomes sponsor for this, and pronounces it pure. " The natural instincts of true love are against it," - against non-exclusiveness, or our freedom. He asserts that this "instinct is not selfish, but implanted by God to ensure moral and social order." We tell him that a morbid sickly state of mind knows no absolute " purity," or an entirely normal development of "love." We admit that the undeveloped "instincts" of a misguided amativeness, are sometimes against our views. We find men on this, as he finds them on war, and resistance of evil; and he echoes back to us on this all of their old arguments to him, in defence of war, or an injurious resistance. They tell him, the " instincts " of man are against him, - or are in favor of resisting to the death, when necessary, an intruding enemy.

That this instinct of self-preservation, is "unselfish, and from God," and shows his will as to the true manner of keeping order." This injurious resistance is more often resorted to in defence of Mr. B.'s exclusive "instinct" in marriage, than any where else. We congratulate him in this case - the marriage question - on finding himself with the majority, and entirely on the popular side.

But to his book - "amativeness, like all the passional appetites, has no inherent self-government." True. * * * "safety lies in subordinating amativeness strictly to reason and the moral sentiments." True, it always is in a strictly healthy mind; - in a perfect development of connubial love. Look at Mr. B's consistency! He truthfully compares amativeness to all the other "passional appetites." His "reason and moral sentiments," put every other "passion and appetite" under nonexclusive laws; - and he would consider the man as void of both " reason and moral sentiments," who should think of doing otherwise. Then he places amativeness, or a part of it, under entire exclusive law. Reader, look at the depth and logic in this! It is "simply contemptible." An appeal to sickly instinct is not sufficient to justify so irrational a position. Reason and a healthy instinct repudiates it all.

Mr. Ballou goes on at some length, to give his views of the terrible consequences, which, he thinks must follow the spread of Free Love. As to this, we know more about it than our friend. He excommunicates his sexual slaves, who rebel under the marriage yoke."* We have long since freed ours from that yoke. We know something of the society of our modern anti-exclusive Jamaica's.