laws of this society need to be particularly explained. This is the law of marriage. 3. As the result of marriage is children, a new relation arises out of this connection, namely, the relation of parent and child. This imposes special obligations upon both parties, namely, the duties and rights of parents, and the duties and rights of children. This class of duties will, therefore, be treated of in the following order: Chapter 1. The general duty of chastity. 2. The law of marriage. 3. The rights and duties of parents. CHAPTER FIRST. THE GENERAL DUTY OF CHASTITY. THE sexual appetite being a part of our constitution, and a limit to the indulgence of it being fixed by the Creator, the business of moral philosophy is to ascertain this limit. The moral law on this subject is as follows: The duty of chastity limits the indulgence of this desire, to individuals who are exclusively united to each other for life. Hence it forbids,— 1. Adultery, or intercourse between a married person and every other person except that person to whom he or she is united for life. 2. Polygamy, or a plurality of wives or of husbands. 3. Concubinage, or the temporary cohabitation of individuals with each other. 4. Fornication, or intercourse with prostitutes, or with any individual under any other condition than that of the marriage covenant. 5. Inasmuch as unchaste desire is strongly excited by the imagination, the law of chastity forbids all impure thoughts and actions; all unchaste conversation, looks, or gestures; the reading of obscene or lascivious books, and every thing which would naturally produce in us a disposition of mind to violate this precept. That the above is the law of God on this subject, is manifest, both from natural and from revealed religion. The law, as above recited, contains two restrictions: 1. That the individuals be exclusively united to each other; and, 2. That this exclusive union be flife. Let us examine the indications of natural religion upon both of these points. I. The indulgence of the desire referred to, is, by the law of God, restricted to individuals exclusively united to each other. This may be shown from several considerations. 1. The number of births, of both sexes, under all circumstances, and in all ages, has been substantially equal. Now, if single individuals be not exclusively united to each other, there must arise an inequality of distribution, unless we adopt the law of promiscuous concubinage. But as the desire is universal, it cannot be intended that the distribution should be unequal; for thus, many would, from necessity, be left single. And the other alternative, promiscuous concubinage, would very soon lead, as we have already remarked, to the extinction of society. 2. The manifest design of nature is to increase the human species, in the most rapid ratio consistent with the conditions of our being. That is always the most happy condition of a nation, and that nation is most accurately obeying the laws of our constitution, in which the number of the human race is most rapidly increasing. Now it is certain, that, under the law of chastity, as it has been explained, that is, where individuals are exclusively united to each other, the increase of population will be more rapid, than under any other circumstances. 3. That must be the true law of the domestic relations which will have the most beneficial effect upon the main tenance and education of children. Under the influence of such a law as I have described, it is manifest, that children will be incomparably better provided for than under that of any other. The number of children produced by a single pair thus united, will ordinarily be as great as can be supported and instructed by two individuals. And, besides, the care of children, under these circumstances, becomes a matter, not merely of duty, but of pleasure. On the contrary, just in so far as this law is violated, the love of offspring diminishes. The care of a family, instead of a pleasure, becomes an insupportable burden; and, in the worst states of society children either perish by multitudes from neglect, or are murdered by their parents in infancy. The number of human beings who perish by infanticide, in heathen countries, is almost incredible. And in countries not heathen, it is a matter of notoriety, that neglect of offspring is the universal result of licentiousness in parents. The support of foundlings, in some of the most licentious districts in Europe, has become so great a public burden as to give rise to serious apprehension. 4. There can be no doubt that man is intended to derive by far the greatest part of his happiness from society. And of social happiness, by far the greatest, the most exquisite, and the most elevating portion, is that derived from the domestic relations; not only those of husband and wife, but those of parent and child, of brother and sister, and those arising from the more distant gradations of collateral kindred. Now, human happiness, in this respect, can exist only in proportion to our obedience to the law of chastity. What domestic happiness can be expected in a house continually agitated by the ceaseless jealousy of several wives, and the interminable quarrels of their several broods of children? How can filial love dwell in the bosoms of children, the progeny of one father by several concubines? This state of society existed under the most favorable circumstances, in the patriarchal age; and its results even here are sufficiently deplorable. No one can read the histories of the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and David, without becoming convinced that no deviation can be made from the gospel law of marriage, without creating a tendency to wrangling without end, to bitterness and strife, nay, to incest and murder. And if this be the result of polygamy and concubinage, in what language is it possible to describe the effects of universal licentiousness? By this, the very idea of home would be abolished. The name of parent would signify no more in man than in the brutes. Man, instead of being social, would become nothing more than a gregarious animal, distinguished from his fellowanimals by nothing else than greater intellectual capacity, and the more disgusting abuse of it. 5. No reason can be assigned, why the intellectual, moral and social happiness of the one sex is not as valu able, in the sight of the Creator, as that of the other Much less can any reason be assigned, why the one sex should be to the other merely a source of sensual gratification. But, just as we depart from the law of chastity, as it has been here explained, woman ceases to be the equal and the companion of man, and becomes either his timid and much abused slave, or else the mere instrument for the gratification of his lust. No one can pretend to believe that the Creator ever intended that one human being should stand in such a relation as this to any other human being. II. The second part of the law of chastity requires that this union should be for life. Some of the reasons for this are as follows: 1. In order to domestic happiness, it is necessary that both parties should cultivate a spirit of conciliation and forbearance, and mutually endeavor to conform their individual peculiarities to each other. Unless this be done, instead of a community of interests, there will arise incessant collision. Now, nothing can tend more directly to the cultivation of a proper temper, than the consideration that this union is indissoluble. A mere temporary union, liable to be dissolved by every ebullition of passion, would foster every impetuous and selfish feeling of the human heart. 2. If the union be not for life, there is no other limit to be fixed to its continuance than the will of either party. This would speedily lead to promiscuous concubinage, and all the evils resulting from it, of which I have already spoken. 3. Children require the care of both parents until they have attained to maturity; that is, generally, during the greater part of the lifetime of their parents, at least, during all that period of their life in which they would be most likely to desire a separation. Besides, the children are the joint property of both parents; and, if the domestic society be dissolved, they belong to one no more than to the other; that is, they have no protector, but are cast out defenceless upon the world. 4. Or, if this be not the case, and they are protected by one parent, they must suffer an irreparable loss by the |