238 LAWS OF THE FAMILY CONSTITUTION.

which their education did not include. But surmounting this improbability, and supposing them to have arrived at the conclusion that, as every thing else has failed, there might possibly be something worth trying in a return to the first principles of the family constitution; how conceivable is it that such a conclusion would find them in a state of moral inability for making the attempt. Now, such a state we deem it morally certain the families of the antediluvian Patriarchs had reached.

During the whole of that period, the domestic economy was pervaded by general laws-organic and intellectual, social and moral. In the absence of these, the training and even the existence of the family would have been impossible. Parents would have been not only exempted from responsibility, but would have had ground for more than complaint. But these laws were ever present and available. So that on the eve of the deluge, after generations of families had passed away, and after every law, perhaps, natural and moral, had been variously perverted, not one had been repealed. Man's nature was more than ever developed for evil, and all the laws of the family were daily experimented on, and subjected to some fresh form of perversion. But even their violations only illustrated by the fearful results, how definite, permanent, and universal was their obligation.

CHAPTER IX.

OBLIGATIONS CONSEQUENT ON THE RELATIONS AND LAWS OF THE DOMESTIC CONSTITUTION

Law of obliga

EVERY human being exists under an obli

tion. gation to promote the great end of existence commensurate with his means and relations. For as every thing necessarily expresses something of that Divine Being whose manifestation is the end of creation; and has received existence in order to manifest that resemblance, and so to contribute toward that end; and is placed in a system of relations in order that such manifestation might be possible, it follows that there are as many obligations as there are relations, and every change and increase of the relations is attended with a change and increase of the obligations.

Pursuing the same order here as in the chapter on the relations of the domestic constitution, we begin with the obligations of the family, internal and co-existent.

The marriage

For reasons already specified, it is obviousunion obligatory. ly the will of the Creator that, as a general rule, every man and woman should be united in marriage. For, as at the first, it was "not good for man to be alone,” so at any subsequent period, celibacy, in proportion to its extent, would tend to defeat the Divine designs.

Mutual adaptation of husband

and wife.

For the same reasons that this union should exist at all, it should exist between parties adapted to each other; the union, that is, should be as perfect as possible. It is evident that the elements of union between the married pair, may be as numerous as are the distinctive parts of the human constitution. Was the first man, for example, a being organic, animal, social, intellectual, emotional, voluntary, and relig ious; then, the first woman, if the union between them was to be complete, must have sustained a relation to him in each of these respects. To make this apparent, it is only necessary to imagine what that union would have been, had either the man or the woman been entirely destitute of any one of these distinctive parts of human nature. If, then, the entire absence of any one of these elements from either of the parties-say, of the intellectual, involving idiocy; or the emotional, involving utter insensibility-would have been fatal to the happiness and design of the union, any defect of either of these parts would, in the proportion of such deficiency, affect the happiness and the design of the union also. That is to say, if no part of the human constitution be a matter of entire indifference, it can not be indifferent what the particular state of any part is; since there must be some one state which, for the well-being of the parties united, would be better than any other.

In order to the perfection of the union, then, each party must be, in all respects, the counterpart of the other. This, however, by no means implies that any of their qualities, physical, mental, or moral, should be precisely equal. On the contrary, the perfection of their union may require a slight diversity in all the respective parts of their constitution.

And then, as all these parts are not of equal importance, it follows that, could we graduate the scale, we should be able to estimate the exact degree of the closeness and perfection of the marriage union in any given instance. We could determine for example whether or not the union cemented by their animal sympathies was equally strong as the union arising from the sympathy of their intellectual or their moral nature.

Now, when the number of the faculties and susceptibilities of the human constitution are remembered, and then the innumerable combinations of which they are capable, it may be inferred that there are no two persons of either sex equally eligible in all respects for union with any individual of the other sex. In other words, there is always some one person more eligible for union with any given individual of the other sex, than any other in the world.

It may be objected that this fact can never be of much practical value, since life might be spent in vain in discovering the most eligible party, in any given instance, for the marriage union, and that omniscience alone could in any case attest the truth of the discovery. To which it may be replied that at the first the difficulty could not have been great; that had the principle of uniting the most eligible always been acted on, the difficulty would never have been insurmountable-and that even now, however difficult and hopeless the selection of the one right individual may be, the selection of an individual from the one right class of character is easy enough, if judgment be allowed a voice in the proceeding. At all events, it will be admitted by all that the principle of adaptation never should be, and never is, entirely lost sight of. Every approach to an utter disregard of it is denounced or derided by the voice of public

opinion. But, if the entire neglect of it would be wrong, then every degree in which it is neglected is proportionally wrong. In other words, the marriage union ought to be formed between such parties only as are in every respect, if possible, adapted to each other.

This adaptation would relate, as we have already remarked, to every constituent part of the human constitution. But, besides these, it would relate to the age, and health, and strength of the parties; as well as to their tastes, habits, and acquirements. And, then, as population increased, and property distributed men into classes, those points of adaptation would be further multiplied; extending to wealth and social rank. It can hardly need to be repeated, however, that those points of adaptation are of immensely different value. Generally speaking, those of the highest value are the least considered. And "what (asks Johnson), can be expected but disappointment and repentance from a choice made in the immaturity of youth, or in the ardor of desire, without judgment, without foresight, without inquiry after conformity of opinions, similarity of manners, rectitude of judgment, or purity of sentiment? Such is the common process of marriage. A youth and a maiden meeting by chance, or brought together by artifice, exchange glances, reciprocate civilities, go home, and dream of one another. Having little to divert attention, or diversify thought, they find themselves uneasy when they are apart, and therefore conclude that they shall be happy together. They marry, and discover what nothing but voluntary blindness before had concealed; they wear out life in altercations, and charge nature with cruelty." Whereas, it is just because “nature”

* Rasselas, c. 29.