CHAPTER XII.

MARRIAGE—FREE LOVE.


“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfill.”—JESUS’ _Sermon_.

MAN, as a finite and relational being, is the subject of government.
Being produced and developed by laws acting to certain ends, he is the
subject of such laws. Being receptive of influences out of himself, he
is subject to such external influences, through their action upon his
conscious perceptions and affections.

Man, as a conscious being, is the subject of two classes of impulses.
One is a sense of affinity, the other of restraint. The first is the
natural impulse proceeding from certain relations, and is a spontaneous
proceeding from such relation without considering consequences. The
other is a reflex impulse proceeding from supposed consequences which
will follow certain conditions and actions, and has respect to ends or
uses.

This latter class of impulses makes him the subject of outward motions,
and bring him under the dominion of laws external to his being. As such
he becomes the subject of an external government. As a conscious being,
man is the subject of two classes of external government, the one which
appeals to his selfish and lustful nature, and the other which appeals
to his moral and relational nature—and he is the proper subject of the
one or the other government, according to the character of his ruling
affection or love.

Man, as a conscious being, can be governed only through some department
of his consciousness. That which induces in him volition must address
his perceptions, and proceed thence to his affections. For man’s
affections can not be approached externally except through his
perception. This is most manifest to the reflecting mind. Before an
individual can love or hate an object, he must be able to perceive it.
And his love or hatred thereof will be according to his perceptions.
Hence it will be perceived that the individual who is in the ruling
love of self, if governed at all as a conscious being, must be governed
by an appeal to his selfish nature; that is, by an appeal to his hopes
and fears. For so long as he is not under the rule of his moral nature,
he can not be governed by its influence. If man is to be controlled, he
must be controlled by controlling that which controls him.

The selfish and lustful man is under the dominion of his selfish
nature, and whatever controls that nature governs him. And he can
be governed, as a lustful being, only by controlling his selfish
nature. The same is true in principle of the moral man, or he who is
under the dominion of his moral nature. Whatever controls the moral
nature governs him; and so long as he is under the dominion of his
moral nature he must be so governed. Thus it will be perceived that
our proposition is true, that man, as a conscious being, must be
governed through that department thereof which rules in him. If it be
the selfish, he must be governed by an appeal to selfishness; if it be
charity or moral love, then that nature must be appealed to.

Since, then, man must be governed by an appeal to that impulse which
rules in him, and since mankind are naturally under the selfish
impulse, the first government to which man becomes subject naturally is
that of force; and it appeals to his hopes and fears—that is, to his
selfish desire for gain or happiness, and his dread of suffering and
loss. Hence _selfishness_ is the basis of the first dispensation of
government. This dispensation of government is not calculated, nor is
it designed, to make the comer thereunto perfect. Its end and use is
to protect the individual from external or outward evils, and not from
that which comes from within. It can not extend beyond the cleansing of
the outside of the cup and platter.

The most this kind of government can do is to restrain man from
depredating upon the rights of his neighbor, by an appeal to his
selfishness. Hence the language of the law pertaining to this kind of
government is, “eye for an eye,” “tooth for a tooth,” “life for life,”
etc. It does not propose to govern man by appealing to his sense of
justice and his love for right. On the contrary its language is, man
has no sense of justice or love of right. He is selfish and sensual,
and therefore the law appeals to his selfishness and sensualism. It
says, Your love of your neighbor is not sufficiently strong to prevent
you from injuring him, but your love of self is sufficiently strong
to prevent your injuring yourself. Therefore says the law, if you
injure your neighbor, we will injure you; if you kill your neighbor,
we will kill you; and the same blow which you aim at your neighbor, we
will cause to fall upon your own head. In this way this first kind of
government takes advantage of man’s selfishness to restrain him. It
does not cause him to love his neighbor. It does not cause him, from
his heart, to respect his neighbor’s rights. It does not tend to lesson
his selfishness or lust. It does not in any manner tend to make him
more true, just, and pure at heart. It only restrains him from giving
expression to his selfish and lustful desires.

So far as his motions to action are concerned, he is under the same
impulse, whether he keep or break the law. He is as righteous at
heart in violating its commandments as in observing its requirements.
In either case he is governed by his judgment respecting that which
pertains to his self-interest, and in keeping the law he is consulting
his own gratification, and in violating it he is doing the same.

So far is this kind of government from tending to make the individual
better at heart, that it not unfrequently makes him more selfish by
intensifying his selfish feelings. The individual who is restrained
from stealing through fear of punishment, and not from a love of
justice, is a thief at heart, and will continue so notwithstanding the
law says, “Thou shalt not steal,” and by its penalties deters him from
stealing. His neighbors may thank the law for its protection. But that
is the end of its use. It will not improve the _moral_ condition of its
subject.

Such, then, is the nature and use of this just dispensation, sometimes
called the first covenant. It is absolutely indispensable for the
protection and preservation of individuals and society. Man left to the
unrestrained exercise of his lustful and selfish nature, would not only
destroy his neighbor, but he would ultimately destroy himself. And thus
the very principle of self-protection compels individuals to associate
together under these governmental forms, by means of which the weak are
to be protected against the encroachments of the strong, the simple
against the machinations of the cunning.

This necessity gives rise to institutions among men which are designed
to direct the _manner_ of applying this power to the protection of
those who institute them. The laws of these institutions are but the
expressions of the intellectual and moral character of those who make
them. Their wisdom is displayed in adapting the means by which their
united force shall be directed to the execution of the governmental
will, whether that be just or unjust.

The uses of these external governments are most apparent; by which I
mean their uses as a means of protection. The highest possible use of
governmental institutions is that of uniting and directing its force
to prevent the weak from becoming the prey of the strong, and the
simple the dupes of the cunning. If every man or human being had the
means of self-protection always at hand, or if none were disposed to
encroach upon the rights of others, but were disposed to do good to
all rather than evil, then there would be no occasion for governmental
institutions. So we see that the uses of institutions, as means of
government, have respect to the concentration and direction of force.

But as the selfish man can be governed only by an appeal to his selfish
nature, and that must be addressed through the motives of hope and
fear, these institutions of government, addressing man’s hopes and
fears, are indispensable for the well-being of society, and can never
be dispensed with until man is elevated to a higher plane, and made the
subject of a higher government. In other words, this kind of government
must never be taken from man, but man must be elevated above, and thus
be taken from the government. There have been two opposite errors
respecting this kind of government: one declaring it to be ordained
by God, and therefore to be observed and obeyed as an exponent of the
Divine will and character; the other holding that all governments
of force and blood are contrary to Divine appointment—both of which
doctrines are true when viewed in a proper direction, and false when
viewed in the opposite one.

In the first place, it is according to Divine appointment that man,
as well as every other finite being, shall be governed according to
the law of the plane in which he exists and acts; because every thing
existing in a finite and relational sphere must become the subject
of some law, or it could perform no mission in respect to itself or
any other existence. Without law it could not be saved from utter
destruction. And being the subject of law, it must be the law of the
plane in which it exists and acts; hence whatever may be the law of
that plane, it is one of Divine appointment.

Man living in the plane of selfishness and lust must be governed by the
laws of that plane; he can be governed by no other. Hence the law of
that plane of sensualism requiring “eye for eye,” “tooth for tooth,”
“life for life,” etc., is a law of Divine appointment for that plane;
and whoever descends into that plane of impulse, and lives there,
becomes subject to its law. Having yielded himself servant to obey his
selfishness and lust, he has become the subject of its laws. Having
taken the sword, he is subject to its use. Having appealed to force, he
must be sure to be on the strongest side, or he will be likely to be
crushed.

But while the law of selfishness and force is one of Divine
appointment, in the sensual plane, it must not be understood as giving
law to any other plane. If the law of “eye for eye,” “tooth for tooth,”
etc., was applicable to the dispensation of sensualism, which the
Mosaic represents, it does not follow that it is the true law of the
Christian or Spiritual dispensation; and he who appeals to such laws
of the Mosaic can have the benefit of them by containing under that
kind of government. But he must remember, if he wishes to obtain the
benefits of the Christian dispensation, he must “put away the old man
with his deeds.”

Hence, according to the teachings of Jesus, he who would become
his disciple must rise above the plane of sensualism. The new law
under which he was to come demanded that the law of force should be
discontinued. If he would have the benefits of the kingdom of heaven,
that is, of the government pertaining to the moral and spiritual
plane, he must not resist evil by force; he must not smite back when
smitten; he must not indulge in feelings of hatred or unkindness
toward any one; he must love his enemies; bless them in the midst of
their cursings. He must be pure in heart; he must hunger and thirst
after righteousness; he must, in all things, be under the dominion of
a love, pure, holy, and unselfish. Such a one would be freed from the
law of sin and death; such a one would cease to be a debtor to the law
of the first dispensation, and would be born into liberty, not into a
liberty to do wrong, but a liberty which had respects to his purified
affections.

This will be understood by contrasting the principles of the two
dispensations. The first governed by a force external to the subject,
constraining him as a selfish being to do things not agreeable to
him, thus bringing his will into subjection. The second governed by
implanting the true affection within the subject, so that his delight
was in the law, according to the inward man. Hence the new kingdom was
to be “within.” The first was over man with force and fear; the second
was to be within man with charity and love.

From this it will be seen, that the first government, or covenant, as
it is called, necessarily required external institutions to beget and
direct its force to compel obedience to its enactments and edicts.
And these institutions were necessarily authoritative; and persons
belonging to their plane of administration were compelled to submit to
them, as to the authority of God.

The second government or covenant which ignored force, and governed by
love, had no use for such institutions, and hence returned the sword
to its sheath. Under its administration, swords were to be beaten into
plowshares and spears into pruning-hooks. Men were to “call no man
master.” But it must be noticed that this second government pertained
only to those who had come under the rule of charity and love, and
thus had put off the old man and his deeds. So long as the individual,
in his affections and lusts, continued in bondage to the impulses of
his animal nature, he belonged to the first dispensation, and must
be continued under tutors and governors until the coming into him of
Christ.

Here, then, we see the two classes of errors into which mankind have
fallen, the first by supposing that the laws of selfishness and force
were applicable to all planes, and that the Christian could find
authority under Moses. The second, by supposing that the laws of
selfishness and force were to be abolished in every plane, not thinking
that such law is just as necessary at one time as another, so long as
man continues under that plane of impulse. Herein we can see the wisdom
of Jesus in his teachings. He came not to destroy the law, or take it
away from man, but his mission was to take man away from the law, and
thus to fulfill or consummate the uses of the law. He condemned not
the law of force as applicable to those who, in their selfishness and
lusts, were under its dominion. And he did not propose to emancipate
them by destroying the law. But he did propose to redeem them from
under it, by calling them to a higher plane of impulse and action. He
proposed to lead them out of Egypt, not take Egypt away from them.

Herein is to be found one of the fundamental errors of Christendom, in
not perceiving the true meaning of the _first_ and _second_ covenants;
that is, in not perceiving the true sphere of the Mosaic and Christian
governments. Each are of divine appointment in their respective
spheres; and neither have respect to time or place of administration,
but to condition. The Mosaic, which is a figure representing the
governments of force addressed to man as a selfish being, will never be
at an end so long as society is in a condition to require that kind of
administration. It will not be at an end in the individual until his
moral nature is in the ascendant, until he keeps that new commandment
of “Love one another.” And the Mosaic dispensation will not be at an
end in society until the kingdom of heaven is established in the hearts
of the members thereof.

The theologian has committed a great error in making the kingdom of
heaven a historic affair, supposing that the death of Jesus terminated
the first, and introduced the second dispensation, not seeming to
understand that the _character_ of the government determined to which
dispensation it belonged irrespective of time or place. That government
which is instituted with respect to, and is administered upon the
principles of selfishness and force, is Mosaic, no matter in what age
or by whom administered. All civil and ecclesiastical governments which
are external and forceful belong to the Mosaic, no matter by what
names they may be called. A moment’s reflection will demonstrate to a
mind of ordinary intelligence and information, that all external human
governments are of this character. We have no Christian governments
exercising power and compelling external obedience to law. The very
supposition is an absurdity. The very moment a government is organized,
and clothes itself with external force, its _Christian_ character is
destroyed.

Christianity, in its true spiritual and saving character, acts only
from _within_ the _individual_. It is not a government over men or
among men. It is a government in man. It cleanses the _inside_ of the
cup and the platter, and _thence_ makes clean the outside. Christians
have no need of governments to keep them in the right way. Understand
me—_real_ Christians, not _professing_ ones. They have no uses for
institutions, for each obeys the right, and takes upon himself the
labor of all needful charities.

Thus it will be found to be a truth of universal applicability, that
wherever institutions, and especially legal institutions, are found
necessary, the people are not Christians, no matter what creed they
profess. Christianity pertains to _character_, not _creed_. External
institutions are incompatible with true Christianity. Both can not
live and act together in the same individual. Men have been conscious
of this, and hence have been involved in doubt and difficulty as to
their duties. But there need be no difficulty on this point. Let it
be understood, that the man who feels the needs of outward restraint
belongs to the Mosaic government, and by it he must be governed; that
all men who are under the dominion of their selfish natures have not
put on Christ, and hence are under Moses. Such are under the law, and
must be continued under “tutors and governors.”

External institutions, then, belong to the first dispensation, and will
continue to be necessary so long as man continues to live under the
dominion of his selfishness and lusts. When he shall be redeemed from
such nature in himself, he will be redeemed from bondage to external
institutions, and he can not properly be before. The evil, then, is
not in the institution, but in that condition of the individual and
society which makes the institution necessary; and the remedy is not
in destroying the institution, but in elevating man, and thereby
dispensing with its need; and until that is done, the law and the
prophets must continue.

This brings me directly to the _institution_ of Marriage, respecting
which so much has been said of late. Like all other _institutions_, it
belongs to the external and Mosaic, and looks to the external relations
of the parties. Its necessity is based upon the same selfish and
lustful principle in man, as is the necessity of all other external
institutions.

Its office is _protection_, not _purification_. Hence all its laws
look to legal security, but do not attempt to elevate and purify the
affections. Those who have written and spoken against the external
marriage institution have acted very unphilosophically in supposing
that the fault of which they complain was in the institution and not in
themselves. I will endeavor to make this apparent.

In the first place, I will do them the justice to say, that the
external institution is in character but little, if any, better than
they affirm of it; that it is made the means of rendering respectable
the grossest lusts; that there is no Christian difference between lust
_within_ and lust _without_ the forms of wedlock; that the individual
who looks upon another with a lustful desire, when tried by the
standard of Jesus, is an adulterer, whether sustaining the external
marital relation or not.

In speaking of the _abuses_ of this institution, I would not have them
abate their zeal by ceasing to proclaim its infidelity to that inward
purity of soul so essential to the true Christian union; but I would
have them make a very different use of the fact.

The use which many, and perhaps most of those who oppose the external
institution of marriage make of its lustful abuses, is rather to
palliate the conduct of those who are lustful outside of its license,
by showing that, at heart, they do not differ from those who indulge
in the same lustful desires and exercises _under_ its licentious
permission; thus very naturally taking license, and, when censured by
others, pleading the respectable guilt of others as their excuse.

In speaking of the abuses of the marriage institution, I would not
plead them in mitigation of lust; nor would I make them the occasion
of license. I would refer to them for the purpose of condemning more
strongly the foul practice of seeking gratification in that direction.

It is not to be objected to the external institution of marriage that
under its sanction the grossest of lusts are practiced in the name of
virtue, and that the weightiest evils are the result. Such is not the
fault of the institution, but of those who use it for that purpose; and
were it not for the institution, under the present lustful condition
of society, the same practice would become universal, and would be
as respectable as it now is under the sanctions of wedlock. If the
external institution does not restrain the exercise of lust between
the parties thereof, it does render disreputable its exercise beyond,
and thus exerts an influence for good to that extent. It does not make
the comer thereunto perfect in his character; but it tends to restrain
him in the exercise of his lust toward others, and thus confines its
evils to a narrower sphere. One of the greatest moral benefits of the
legal institution of marriage is that it tends to restrict the lustful
practices of the parties to themselves; and, in reality, this is the
bondage of which the objector complains.

The advocate of that which is called “free love” complains that under
the legal institution of marriage the parties are prohibited from
following their attractions or passional affinities; that although they
might have been suited to each other at the time of the union, that
circumstances and tastes have changed; that love requires variety,
and that in matters of love each ought to be at liberty to follow its
leadings. The first great error into which the advocate of free love
falls is in mistaking _lust_ for _love_. The doctrine that love changes
is a fundamental error, and of itself demonstrates that the objector
has mistaken _lust_ for love. The true impulse known as love has an
immutable basis, and will be as constant as the relation and need
through which and for which it became manifest.

The nature of _hunger_ and _thirst_, as expressive of the needs of the
body for food and drink, never changes; and the gratification incident
to the proper supply of those needs never changes until abuse and
disease have wrought their work. Man’s desire for particular kinds of
food may change; but that has respect to lustful gratification rather
than the supply of a real need.

Remembering our definition of lust to be _a desire for
self-gratification_, we shall find that this _change_ and _variety_ in
food and drink looks more to the gratification of desires than to the
fulfilling of needs, and therefore belongs to the class of lusts.

True love never changes. From its nature it can not. It being that
impulse which indicates an affectional need, it must be as unchanging
as the soul and God. Take that known as maternal love, and who that
has known a mother’s love will say that it demands for its life and
continuance variety and change? Tell the mother, as she presses her
first-born to her bosom, that she will soon demand change and variety
to keep alive her maternal affection, and she would reply in the
language of Macduff, “He has no children.” No, of all things else, true
love will admit of no change, no variety.

In no affectional relation, save that of husband and wife, would the
free lover admit that love required change or variety. In the parental,
fraternal, filial, and social relations that doctrine does not apply.
The parent loves his child, and feels no demand for variety.

What would be thought of that mother who should tire of loving her
child, and give as an excuse that her tastes had changed; that once
her child was suited to her maternal affection; but that now her
maternal love had changed its character and quality, and demanded a
corresponding change on the part of the object of its affection? It
requires no argument to show that such can never be the requirements
of maternal love. The same is true of every other manifestation of
the affectional principle. Fraternal, filial, and social love will
admit of no change; demand no variety. The brother and sister can
love on and love forever; the parent and child can do the same; and
true friendship abides in constancy of affection. But _lust_ demands
variety, and consequently change. When the true impulse is overlooked,
and self-gratification becomes the end in pursuit, then comes with it
the demand for variety. This is seen in eating and drinking. Hunger
and thirst only call for simple food and drink. They will supply the
demand. But the moment gratification is consulted, then great must be
the change and large the variety. And by far the largest amount of
labor and expense is bestowed upon gratification.

The same is seen in the social department. Those who, in their social
intercourse, are seeking selfish gratification instead of the happiness
and well-being of their associates, are those who demand variety; who
themselves are _cloying_ of one kind of amusement, and then demanding
another. This principle of demanding change in food, in society, in
amusement, etc., depends upon that condition known as _cloyed_; and it
does not take place in respect to any need. The thirsty soul is never
cloyed with drink until it ceases to be thirsty; the hungry soul with
food until hunger ceases. But it is not thus with lust; it ceases to
enjoy one means of gratification after another, while yet the demand
mand for gratification continues. The same principles apply to the
marriage relation. True conjugal love never changes. It can never
change, because it must rest upon an unchangeable basis. The mode
of begetting offspring must be as enduring as the race. The demand,
therefore, will be as imperative as the necessity, and hence the desire
for offspring must be as deep and fundamental as the soul itself.

The law of procreation demands that in view of the great end to be
accomplished, those who unite in the procreative art should unite
upon the highest and purest plane. Hence the conjugal affection or
love has its basis in this deepest and most immutable necessity of
the soul. Understand me—man, in his present condition, is the grand
ultimate of all past being and action. And that which took all past
ages to accomplish is committed to man in the command to be fruitful
and multiply. The future is committed to him. That which comes into
conscious being must do so through him, and the true foundation for the
fulfillment of the great command is laid in the conjugal union of the
male and female souls. To say of the impulse calling for such union,
that it demands change and consequent variety, is blasphemously false
and absurd. The basis of conjugal love is as deep and immutable as are
the foundations of immortality and eternal life.

But let this union be a mere external and lustful one, that is, one
looking for self-gratification, and it becomes subject to the law
of lust, and consequently, like every other lustful affection, will
demand variety. The very nature of lust is to disease and destroy and
to defeat the end sought. It therefore brings with itself ultimate
cloying and disgust; and to remedy that, it must have change.

That this is the nature of that impulse which _free lovers_ mistake
for love, is further evident from its associations. The plea they set
up is, that every one is free to seek happiness; and consequently when
one relation or pursuit fails to conduce to that end, they should be
permitted to change the relation or the pursuit, and seek happiness in
another. They make the seeking after happiness the great end of life;
hence they have adopted very appropriate language, such as “passional
attraction,” “passional affinity,” etc.

For this reason, in their assemblies they aim at self-gratification.
Each is striving to beget pleasure. Their assembly-rooms are full
of amusements and “innocent recreations,” singing, dancing, playing
at different games, chatting, etc., all pursued in respect to the
pleasures they promise, and not in respect to the good irrespective
of the pleasure. The plea is, the people demand cheap amusements, or
rather need them. Cheap amusements are the very things they ought not
to have. It is but another name for cheap dissipation. But the advocate
for free love complains that the law and public sentiment hold him to
his choice, when he has made a bad one. The uses and benefits of the
law are seen in this, that they do hold all such to their choice, and
by so doing avoid a multiplicity of bad matches.

The individual who is out seeking passional affinities is under the
influence of lust, and the sooner he or she is caught and caged the
better; such can gain nothing by being permitted to experiment. Until
they can rise above their selfish and lustful natures in other things,
they will not be very likely to do it in matrimonial affairs.


END.