been ere this extinct; for Christ has been made, by this nation, one of its great supports. They have made him (most unjustly, I think) the great champion of slaveholders; and Humanity, in seeking the abolition of this crime, has had to contend with what this nation, in church and state, calls Christ, as its most determined and malignant foe. It is not, then, by faith in him, nor in any other man, that slavery is to be blotted out; but by faith in the truth and goodness of anti-slavery principles, and in the facts and laws of human nature.

So in regard to war. It is not by faith in Jesus, but in truth and justice, in the sympathies, instincts, and wants of humanity, that this evil is to be annihilated. Jesus did, indeed, teach the principle and spirit of peace, and his whole life, so far as known, was a practical repeal of the principles, spirit, and laws of war. Love to enemies, forgiveness of injuries, good for evil, &c., were the doctrines he taught. Faith in the truth and justice of these principles will yet beat all weapons of war into those of peace, and cause all to cease to learn war. Is it said, This is what is meant by faith in Christ? Say so, then; direct attention to these principles, and not to the teacher of them. They had been just as true, and adapted to convince the reason and move the heart, had any other taught them.

Let us cease, then, to talk about the man, and talk about justice, righteousness, goodness, truth; talk about them, not as abstractions, but as something belonging to us, in us, and of us. Show men and women that to know and be true to the laws under which they exist, is to be good, as God designed we should be. But such has been the effect of the Bible teachings, and the teachings of priests and people, who receive it all as divine, that it is a most common thing for men to make up for want of confidence in truth by faith in Christ, and to supply the lack of reverence for truth by reverence for Christ, and of practical justice, honesty, forgiveness, by talk about Christ and salvation

by faith in him. Witness Daniel Webster. His last prayer was, Save me by Jesus Christ. He dared not ask to be saved by truth, justice, honesty, and goodness. He had no faith in these to ensure him heaven. How could he? His life had been for years a life of contempt for truth, justice, purity, sobriety, and righteousness. The cry of the innocent, the dumb, the enslaved, had gone up to God against him. He had no hope in truth and goodness. His hope was in Jesus, who, as he supposed, might perfect him in happiness.

ITEM XIX.

CHRIST'S DEFINITION OF ADULTERY.

NATURE attaches an importance to the marriage attribute of humanity which it does to nothing else. The relations based on this are designed to be the sources of the most intense and elevated enjoyments of which our nature is capable. It was designed to have, and does have, more control over the destiny of man, than all other elements of his being combined. Nature connects with a natural use of it her sweetest smiles; and with its abuses, her most terrible frowns. Not our relation to all the universe besides so absorbs our thoughts and feelings, so controls our words and actions, so beautifies existence, so refines and perfects our nature and shapes our destiny, as the relation of man to woman, and woman to man, in marriage. God in Nature has honored this relation as he has none other. He has connected with it the organization, the health, and perfection of the race. This capacity of the soul for marriage, above all other attributes of our nature, assimilates and binds us to God. Very different from this, I think, is the view taken of the conjugal desire, or passion, by the Bible.

The Bible says (Matt. 5: 27-30):

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

This passage contains Jesus' exposition of the law of adultery. What is meant by the phrase, "To look on a woman to lust after her"? Does Jesus mean to say Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, were adulterers? Does it mean that he who looks on any woman to desire her (lust means here desire), without a license from human government, is an adulterer? I think he had not this idea in his mind.

What, then, does it mean? It is aimed at all impure, degrading connection between men and women at all abnormal relations between the sexes. True; but what did Jesus consider an unnatural, impure connection? It seems to me the passage admits of but one interpretation; that is, whosoever looketh on any woman to desire her as a wife, is an adulterer at heart. The relation of husband and wife is here condemned as inconsistent with the purity and perfection to which Jesus taught men and women to aspire. Jesus saw all around him the pollutions, the diseases and degradation, resulting from the abuses of the marriage element. To save his followers from this degradation, he pronounced marriage itself adultery, and warned his disciples. against the conjugal and parental desire. To desire any woman as a wife, or any man as a husband, is adultery, as it is defined by Jesus.

That such was the intent of Jesus may be inferred from the

and parentage

words of the passage; from the fact that it was common in Judea, in Persia, in Egypt, in Greece and Rome, for those who aimed at the highest attainments in purity, to abstain from marriage; from the life of Jesus, who abstained from marriage never allowing himself to come into the relations of husband and father; and, from the teachings of Jesus, as he seems to mention approvingly the practice of men "making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (Matt. 19: 12.) That is, that they may be able to make greater attainments in moral elevation.

The relation itself is spoken of by Paul as necessarily bringing trouble (1 Cor. 7: 29), and as necessarily interfering with our duties to God. It says, a man without a wife, and a woman without a husband, can better attend to the things of the Lord, and be better able so to feel, think, speak, and act, as to please him, than those who are married. It says that the unmarried will be more likely to be holy in body and in spirit than the married. Their marriage would be a hindrance to their spiritual elevation; that the married man would have his thoughts and feelings turned away from God, to care for his wife; and she hers to care for her husband. All this is said to us, "that we may attend upon the Lord without distraction." (1st Cor. 7: 32-35.) Those that are married are expected to live as though they were not; that is, to attach little or no importance to the relation, or to the duties growing out of it, but to let their minds and hearts be entirely absorbed in their relation and duties to God. The idea is inculcated, that a man cannot properly care for his wife and the Lord, nor a woman for her husband and the Lord, at the same time. Paul was mistaken, when he informs us that he had the spirit of God when he gave such instructions. That spirit never led Paul, or any one, to teach contrary to Nature. God never directed Jesus, or Paul, or any man or woman, to abstain from marriage. As well assert that God

made man to breathe the air, and then forbade him to breathe it. Nature assures us that the married can better care for the things of the Lord, and better please the Lord, than the unmarried; and that a perfect development of body and soul can better be attained in that relation than out of it. It assures us that those who most perfectly love, honor, and care for their wives and husbands, most truly love, honor, and serve God. They are the most faithful to their own natures, and, of course, to God! This abstinence from marriage to please the Lord, and attain a more perfect growth in goodness and wisdom, as do the Catholic Priesthood, as did the early Christians, as did Paul, and as did JESUS, is practically to pour contempt upon the most divine element of our being, and an error fraught with fearful results to the purity and elevation of our moral nature. To seek to crush it is as great an outrage as would be its abuse.

It is certain that the Christians regarded marriage as necessarily tending to corrupt the soul, and unfit it for intimate communion with God. Hence, in the first and second centuries, it was common for men to shun the society of women, and women of men; to retire into deserts, and mountains, and solitudes, to avoid all excitement of their marriage nature. Those who could most effectually suppress the conjugal passion were counted the best Christians, and were held up as examples most worthy of imitation; as if the tendency of man to woman, and woman to man, were, in itself, a corrupting instinct. The monastic system and the celibacy of the priesthood originated in the same construction of the teachings of Jesus by the early Christians, and in the feeling that marriage necessarily tended to obstruct that pure and intimate communion with God which it was the mission of Jesus to establish among men. It is certain, too, that some of the most learned and celebrated Christians of the three first centuries approved of men's making themselves "eunuchs for