Again - "4, Sexual promiscuity must degrade and oppress woman." Reader, in the book, there is nearly two pages, following the above proposition, of his sort of argument. Having settled it in his own mind that all deviation from dual order is the promptings of lust, he goes on to describe and discuss the sure consequences of an entire reign of lust. Admitting his premises, his conclusions are safe. If any reader has his book, he can turn to it. (It is aside from the first intention of our book to give all of these secondary, but still important questions, a full place. Others have written upon them better than we could do, and we must refer the reader to them. We do not desire to supercede any other publication which has gone before us. We refer the reader to a Tract, containing a discussion between "Stephen P. Andrews, Henry James, and Horace Greeley," and published by Mr. Andrews; and to letters since published in the Tribune, and Mr. Andrew's reply in Nichols' Journal. Nowhere else can both sides be found better handled. I ought to add - Mr. Nichols' book on Marriage, replies at some length to such conservative objections as we find in Mr. Ballou's book. I would meet them with pleasure, in any paper open to me. But I am set against making my present-work too long.

I confess it to be a book of " one idea." But it is a central, a pivotal, idea - and the one on which the main hinge of civilization hangs.

* I simply refer to an act of his society in dismissing a member.

Mr. Ballou does not differ as much from us as at first sight it would appear, in view of our contra-dictions of him. He, in every line, is in truth, writing of diseased amativeness; - of what Mr. Davis calls "Extremeism." He does not seem to me to have the most distant conception of what I call entire health. He always, or nearly always, degrades amativeness. We confess, in the past, it has degraded itself. Still we write of a healthy mind : - of a healthy attraction. We write of love, not lust. Love is healthy, and is under the control of the wisdom of reason, and the moral sentiments; and not under "carnality." The reign of sexual selfishness, we do not call a healthy connubial love. We deprecate the morbid and irregular action of any faculty. Such fruits are often terrible. Too terrible for human pen to describe. Mr. Ballou and ourselves agree that as a matter of fact, amativeness, as well as all other sentiments, have been, and still are, more or less diseased. He leaves no room, except through law, - the law of exclusive marriage - for its coming health. If it were here our first object to discuss the way of salvation for so sickly a race, we, most certainly, should propose to mix a little gospel freedom with our remedies.

He insists that any deviation from absolute exclusiveness will increase the malady. And, like the Physician, who should advise to the gratification of the craving of a dispeptic stomach for its cure, he insists upon compliance with what to us are the immoral cravings of a worse than dispeptic "instinct," as a means to its desired health. Perhaps even he does not mean all this. He may have little hope of a coming cure; and so labors more to stay its further encroachments. In one point of view he is consistent with himself. Though a non-resistant, he believes in confining criminals, - dangerous criminals. He finds amativeness to be such a criminal. So it is at least wise to confine it to the exclusive marriage yoke. I must confess to no little sympathy with him in this, when, and so far as it is thus ungovernable and dangerously criminal. I am not disposed to quarrel with the past for her sexual discipline. Not in the main, with the shakers. It is even possible, that Jesus was right in favoring, - in speaking favorably of a man's making himself a literal "Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake," or the sake of purity, peace, and happiness. This, was truly an unnatural remedy, to meet a very bad and perhaps really an unnatural disease; - and possibly better than the entire reign of lust.

Perhaps better than to commit, and be hung for rape. This was literally removing, an "offending" member. I say then, in view of the terrible diseases of the past, I will not judge the sufferer too harshly, for her equally terrible remedies, though they may seem to me unnatural and unphilosophical. They could not do as we can do. I will respect Jesus in living a practical life, like the sect of Esses of his day, - and not marrying in any form; - if, on the whole, he considered it wise and best so to do. His life lacked a wholeness and entirenessin development and experience. But perhaps it was the best he could then do. So we judge not the past. My great objection to Mr. Ballou is, that he does not leave room in his marriage teachings for man's progression and "restoration;" for all which is really his present and coming health. Even if the exclusive dual instinct in the marriages of civilization has, on the whole, been the best for the plane of civilization - of this we are not sure, and so do not judge, that instinct is not adapted to, or suitable for the harmony of the future. It will fall before it.

So, if Mr. Ballou still feels it to be his duty to represent the "Moses " of this age, and make laws, and write for the confinement of the "animal" - man, I would fain persuade him to leave room in his faith, and in his propositions, for me and my friends, to write in defence of freedom for the God-man. God bless the Moses of each age. But a double blessing will ever attend the Christ - and the Christs of each age.

Ishmael should not war against Isaac, - nor should Isaac be unjust to Ishmael; - even though the one does represent bondage, and the other freedom.

In short, Mr. B., on the subject of exclusive marriage, writes as we might suppose any good conservative mind would have done, during the past few hundred years. I suppose he, as well as we, consider it safe to follow "fundamental principles," or the " eternal laws of order," over all consequences. We wish to call him back to the original - so far as man is concerned - source of, and to the search for, these laws. We say, then, if he will once more take his pen, and attempt either or all of the following things: - 1st, To reply to my mind argument - of the non-exclusive nature of the attraction of each and every part of the human brain, (as I have made my meaning understood on that proposition); or 2nd, If he should admit my first proposition, show the higher or lower law in mind, which should confine any part of it over its normal attraction; or 3d, Give the mind law which proves his position - that all variety is, "per se, more or less adulterous." I say, if Mr. B. will do either, or all of the above, I will meet him to reply, or to surrender. Till then, I respectfully take leave of him. It is high time the friends of exclusive marriage were put directly upon the defence of their own system.

Though their possession has been long, it has never been entirely "peaceable," but under repeated protests. In every past age, it has been more or less "in law." As a friend of Free Love, we summon our opponents before the higher court of mental philosophy.

The reader will bear with a little illustration of the general tone and style of the conservative mind in civilization towards the rising Free Love. It comes in my " Liberator," and is so short, and so much to the point, I cannot resist the temptation to copy it.

"Liberty A Universal Curse."

Hear the language of the Richmond Enquirer : -

"Crime, famine, ignorance, anarchy, infidelity, and revolution, stare the reader in the face on every page of universal liberty. A single season of want in Ireland and Scotland will exhibit more human suffering than a Mrs. Stowe could glean from the annals of slavery through all time and through all countries. The South owes it to herself to throw free society on the defensive. Slave society is co-extensive with man in time and space. It must be natural, or man must be an unnatural being. It is recognized and authorized by the Bible, and was ordained of God. Free society is a little experiment, a departure from nature, that claims no Divine authority, and very little of human authority.

"We put the question to all abolitionists: What have been the results of this little experiment? It is you who should defend yourselves - not us. Human experience, and practice, and divine authority are on our side. You must make out a strong case, in order to justify the injustice of such authorities. Instead of southern men being called out to lecture in defence of slavery, northern men should be invoked to defend their institutions."

Really, the application is so plain, that it hardly needs any aid from us. The reader can only substitute free love in the place of "universal liberty;" civilization for "south;" love for "society;" the marriage institution for "slave society; " free loveites for "abolitionists," etc. Please read our extract again with the above substitutions, and we promise it will make a perfect fit for nearly every conservative writer against Free Love.

But we are among the impertinent and meddlesome "abolitionists" free loveites; and deny all exclusive titles to sex. We have returned, in our book, the demand upon civilization, and called upon her to defend herself against the coming light and rights of Free Love. Her age is admitted, but her character for peace and purity has not been the best, and she must and will make room for a larger " experiment" in sexual freedom. 7