More from Mr. Wright---------"A masculine soul and a feminine soul in marriage, are absorbed each into the other. The essence of each enters into the other; permeates, fills and thrills it, leaving to neither a separate existence. Thought responds to thought, will to will, heart to heart. * * * * The entrance of two souls, each into the other, thus making of two one perfect being - this is marriage, as my heart defines it. * * * * I cannot feel that I have an existence apart from thee. Without thee I can do nothing. I am nothing. In thee I live, move, and have my being. To dwell in thee is to dwell in love, in God. I have no hopes, no longings, no aspirations, no life, apart from thee."

Really, a woman is the whole saviour of my friend's theology for a man - and a man is the whole saviour for a woman. More:- She is the whole of society, to her husband, which he can possibly desire or receive. Each is entirely "absorbed" by the other. But we think we understand Mr. Wright, through these long expression* of love, and we do not like to clip his wings of connubial affection. We are entirely in love with the real substance of the union here described. We only wish to enlarge it. We would not care if - oh how glorious it would be - if, in the progress of the race, the time should come, when all men feel to all women, and all women feel to all men, like this. This would be heaven, verily. Methinks I should like to live in such a day. No, I am not yet pure and expanded in soul enough for that. But, surely, love would then "work no evil to his neighbor," or to his neighbor's wife. I promised not to quote much from this chapter, as it was not directly connected with our difference. But its real meaning was too rich. I could not pass it. Yet I tell the reader the book is full of more like it, and as good. I rejoice to know that when men attain to such views as this book contains, they will not stop here.

When man has really advanced to such love as this for the one, he will go on till he reaches it to the many; and the harmony and consequent happiness will be just so much greater. Then, "every old man I meet will be my father, - every old woman, my mother; every young man I meet will be my brother, and every young woman will be my sister - if need be, my wife. All children will love me, and I will love and embrace them. They will be mine." How glorious that day ! A day so long prayed for by all the pious of earth. In this heaven, there will be no exclusive marriage, or giving in marriage. But we shall all be as the real and higher angels. We say, let that day come ! let it come! though it should over turn and over turn, - purify and sanctify, - sift and burn, in a preceding judgment, and bury in one common grave of the past, all sectarinism and all exclusive marriage, and land our race in one ocean of love and union ! Let all jealously and hate go to its own place 1 All this will do no harm, but untold good. We confess to some little dread - (for others, not for ourselves, we think we have lived passed it) - of the coming storm on this subject, when, and as we know our prayers, and the prayer of Mr. Wright, for the spirit of his prayer is like ours, it will be answered.

We do not dread, but glory in the moral calm which will succeed it. Then will the "will of God be done upon earth, as it is done in heaven." We shall be as the angels. We have no doubt but exclusive marriage prevails to some extent, in the lower spheres. But we do not call these angels of heaven. "The husband is the ideal actualized. No other man is like him, or ever can be. He is stronger, nobler, truer, more tender, more perfectly adapted to the wife's delicate intuitions than any or all other men." "Nobler, truer." Should marriage make a fool of a woman? Shall she believe what may be a falsehood? This is contending for perpetuity of a disease, which is now altogether too prevalent. But if every word of Mr. Wright's statement was true, it does not prove his entire exclusive feature in marriage. There is no evidence of the absolute truth of most of it. This entire monopoly of sexual love over all other loves, is untruthful and sickly. Mr. Wright, in his book, truthfully defines connubial love to be sexual love, and yet he every where seems to give this lower faculty power to monopolize and control all above it. He exalts it at the expense of all above it. In a truthful harmony, it should be below other loves, and never act at the expense of any.

Instead of harmonizing this with other loves in the brain, each in their true order, he attempts, virtually, in all his writings on the subject, to concentrate all other loves in this. To us this is abnormal, and we never call such a state of mind healthy, or the true connubial love. It is but fractionally so. Mr. Wright, in this way, lowers manhood and womanhood. Still, as he marries the faculties of the mind, though it bo unnatural marriage, placing the lower above the higher, it is much better, and in advance of the past.

We nearly harmonize with Mr. Wright in the "perpetuity of love," except that we go further, and would not, in any way, hint that it was possible for death to make any change with it. Perhaps we do not differ much with him in his exception, - that an unequal development after marriage might end, at least, in a (partial) divorce. We believe this often comes, in marriage entered into on some of the lower planes. Mr. Davis believes in nature's divorce, as well as in nature's marriage. Mr. Wright rep resents the husband as saying to his mate, "Thou cans't not continue to love me if I become unlovable." This is good philosophy. No more can a normal mind help loving all which is to it lovable.

We come now to the direct issue between us and Mr. Wright. In the question which he puts : -


We have said no - Mr. W. says yes. (See Letter IV. page 125.)


"Nina," (the name of Mr. W.'s ideal lady re-spondent,) " it is settled between us that our oneness will be eternal, if our present desires and wants are truly answered; also, that the perpetuity of our oneness depends on our knowledge of and fidelity to the natural laws by which marriage is designed to be regulated. The question arises - M Is exclusive-ness a fixed law of mind? I ask not should either marry after the death of the other." This loosness in relation to a surviving partner, after the death of his or her mate, is entirely inconsistent with his whole defence of exclusive marriage. By his philosophy, any such marriage could be nothing but adultery. It is not necessarily a crime to die before one's mate - and so love, which we both contend is naturally eternal, cannot be sundered by death. But to numberless inconsistencies is every man driven, who engages in the defence of error.