weaken her obedience. Again, I have noticed that the wife shall feel and see the husband's love to wane when he is as unconscious of it himself, and he in reference to her love shall just be as hard and dull of sight as she of his faults. These things I have myself seen in many cases.

I have remarked that love on both sides, true and sincere, renders natural and rational the Christian doctrine of the Supremacy of the husband and the obedience of the wife; and I believe it will be seen that it is the doctrine upheld by reason and confirmed by experience.

But Christian faith and Christian holiness, this completes and perfects it—this alone is that which completely and entirely brings forth the marriage vow in its beauty, and enables the Husband and the Wife to estimate the marriage state as "Holy," "Sanctified," "Honourable in all." This alone says, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it:" this compares the marriage union to that of Christ and the church; this, instead of "Civil Contract," makes it a vow before God, and that a vow of that which no "Civil Contract" can prescribe or enforce-of mutual love, honour, obedience, affection, respect-in fact, love unselfish and unsensual. And a true and sincere faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, a living faith in the heart and in the life, these, when they exist, display and manifest unto the married the suitableness unto our nature and the adaptedness to our happiness of the doctrine of the Gospel in reference to the position of husband and wife.

But a deficiency in these will naturally lead in the way of the other notion.

And for this reason I should not at all be astonished to view the gradual growth and prevalence of the Roman-Law view of marriage, and the decay of the other, until, finally, only in the Church of Christ may we see those views and that law of marriage prevail that are peculiarly Christian.*

* I would not be understood wholly to condemn the proceedings of the Roman Law. No. I say, only Christianity can render the Common-Law doctrine possible. While the mass of he people, then, are unchristianized in profession and in heart, there must be recourse more or less to the principles of the Civil or Roman Law. Let women, therefore, in their property be protected. But let us the clergy, and others who feel its value, spread the true doctrine of marriage until it again become the sentiment of the whole people.

CHAPTER IV.

Law of Parents and Children.-Not merely an Animal Relation.-Evils arising from this notion.-Parents are bound to Children: 1st, Corporeally; for Maintenance.-Limits of this Obligation.—The State can enforce it.-2d, Mentally; for Education.-Limits of this Right.-The State has no Power of Religious Teaching: of Moral Teaching only up to a certain point.-3d, Spiritually; for Religious Education.-The State has no right in this whatever.

THE relation of the parent to the child and of the child to the parent is very simple indeed, if we look upon man as an individual animally existing, and consider Society as having no existence and no rights. "The animals pair by the force of one instinct, implanted in their nature for that purpose, and so does man." Here is the Animal or Physical account of marriage. "And by another instinct, the animals provide for their young until able to provide for themselves, and so does man. And that's the end of it."

Now, I do not say that men precisely and distinctly hold these views; but this I do say, that there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of parents in our land who act upon these views, and discharge themselves, as far as they can, from all duties of Education, of Religious Training, of Moral influence and superintendence, and, at the bottom, hold the mere physical view that the Home is not sacred, but is the mere dwelling-place of a pair of Animals having reasoning powers, whose mutual relation is merely to minister to one-another's comfort, and who have positively no moral duty, no religious, no educational one to fulfil to their offspring-nothing but a mere physical one: that of giving them food and clothing until they are able to give it to themselves.

I say, too, that of so-called religious men, there are multitudes who take precisely the same views, who, upon any and every pretext, are ready to devolve upon others the duties they themselves should perform towards their children.

And then have I seen these parents unhonoured by their chil dren in old age, unreverenced, unobeyed. I have seen the children despising the age and infirmity of the parents, ashamed of their poverty, speaking openly and contemptuously of their errors, vices and infirmities, froward, rebellious, and disorderly, until, finally, the tie was severed-without love and trust upon the one side, without gratitude or filial affection upon the other. And then such parents complain. Wrongly and unjustly; for this result they themselves did all they could to bring about.

Man is a threefold being: "Spiritual," "Rational," "Corporeal, or Animal." If you act in the Home, towards children, as a mere animal, then shall the reward you obtain be nothing but this. I do not conceive that nestlings, when grown to maturity, make any difference between their parents and other full-grown birds-that dogs or horses, or any other animals, have any feeling towards the parent for a longer time than they are attached to them by physical wants and physical instinct. And so of all other animals wherein that which in man is done by the Affections is done in them by animal instinct. There is no gratitude, no love, no reverence, no respect, after the time of growth is past. Full growth and maturity of age puts the parent upon precisely the same ground as all other animals of the kind.

But man is a Spiritual being as well. His marriage is not a bare Animal Union, but one moral and spiritual in the highest degree. His Home is Spiritual and Moral too, and parents have Spiritual and Moral duties to do. If they do them not, but evade them, neglect them, free themselves from all obligation of them, so that really only the mere physical duty of supplying food and clothing is done, then the Animal result is the consequence-thanklessness, disobedience, neglect, want of respect, and want of affection, upon the part of children. I excuse them not for this: children of such temper and conduct sin before God, and are guilty because of it; but this I do say: the sin of the father is the cause, bringing most certainly, as effect, the sin of the children.

But let us be clearly understood, and not misapprehended. We said not that these merely animal duties and rights do not exist. We only say that they are not the only duties, so that all should be void except these. The father, in virtue of his threefold existence, has duties merely and entirely physical towards

the child as an animal; but these are not all. There are, besides these duties, duties Intellectual and duties Moral. Let us look at these three in order.

"Maintenance" is the first. "The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children," says Blackstone, "is a principle of natural law, 'an obligation laid on them,' says Puffendorff, 'not only by Nature herself, but by their own proper act in bringing them into the world. For they would be in the highest degree injurious to their issue, if they only gave children. life that they might afterwards see them perish.' By becoming their parents, therefore, they have entered into a voluntary obligation to endeavour, as far as in them lies, that the life they have bestowed shall be supported. And thus the children will have a perfect right to receive maintenance from their parents. * * * The Municipal laws of all well-regulated states have taken care to enforce this duty. Though Providence has done it more effectually than any laws, by implanting in the breast of every parent that natural "Eropyn," or insuperable degree of affection, which not even the deformity of person or mind, not even the wickedness, ingratitude, and rebellion of children, can totally suppress or extinguish." * * *

"The Civil law obliges the parent to provide maintenance for his child, and, if he refuses, 'Judex de ea cognoscet,' ('let the judge take cognisance of the matter.')"

Blackstone then goes on to show how the Common law enacts the same duty, and by what measures it can be enforced. But this belonging to Law and not to Ethics we shall merely say that the principle is maintained by the Laws of all countries, and dismiss it only remarking that the duty and the right are purely physical and animal, arising from the fact that the child has a body and bodily life, that requires daily support,—that this life and body he has derived as part of his whole nature from his parents, and from no other individual or individuals,—and that, of himself, he is unable, in every or any way to support that life. These are the whole foundations of that right and that duty, both of them, it is manifest, purely animal, and both done by the animals under the influence of instinct.

The duration of this maintenance, or rather of the right, manifestly being until the offspring are perfectly able to support them

* That is, Roman.

selves, is a period depending upon many elements, and usually settled by law. The expensiveness of it depending mainly upon the ordinary manner of life of the parents, is by this to be determined. And because, although it is in and within the Family, still, however, questions of Life and Property are involved; herein the State comes in, and enforces by its outward Law that which the inward and natural law, or, as it was called by the ancients ropy (storghe,) or natural, parental, and filial instinct prescribes.

The parents, then, are bound to give to their children this maintenance, by the law of their own nature. The State, as an external institution, divinely appointed, and having the power of protecting by law, rights of Life, and rights of Property, has the right to enforce and regulate this question of maintenance, and to compel it from parents that are unwilling to obey the law of their own bosoms.

These, then, are the first duties of parents, the first rights of children;-the physical and animal rights arising from the body, the rights of helplessness and inability to support.

And here we shall remark that there is a very great difference, morally, between the ways that these things are done in; of themselves they are merely Animal, and may be done merely as such, --still are they done. And the same duties may be done in a spirit of love, affection, tenderness of feeling, sympathy; this last ensures love and gratitude;—the first, ingratitude and thanklessness.

The same remark may be made with regard to all aid to the hungry and the miserable. Bread, with pity and sympathy, is that which ensures gratitude and thankfulness; bread, unblessing and unsympathizing, is bread that receives no thanks.

But we come to a matter higher than the Animal duties. When the bird or the beast arrives at maturity, then it has, by its nature full grown, the capacities to continue its life, to acquire its food by the faculties its organization gives it, and in the way that organization requires. Now this is partly by an unerring instinct, and partly by the Understanding, as instructed by experience. And so we find the parents give the young the benefit of their own experience, as any one may see who will watch a parent bird with her fledgelings, or a cat with her kittens. But mostly are they left to Instinct, and to the effect of that allotment, which, for the