affections, destroys the sources of those feelings and principles that best adorn and dignify humanity. Some philosophers, whose tenets have been adopted by the Jesuits, condemn the love of relatives as a carnal inclination. They praise those ascetics who trample on all natural ties; they contrast an unbounded and universal benevolence with an affection limited to persons and localities, and insinuate that attachment to individuals generates indifference to the species. To this conclusion the Jesuits and the Owenites equally arrive, though starting from very different principles; and when they do agree, of course, "their agreement is wonderful.” It is of some importance, at the present day, to shew that the principle of sociality by no means leads to the anomalous institution denominated socialism, and that the monastic rules adopted by the ascetics and the New Harmony institutes of the Owenite are adverse to the present happiness and future progress of humanity. To begin with the Jesuits; they declare that the domestic affections are carnal. Nobody denies that they are so in their origin; for it is a principle of our nature, that the first impulses are given by the physical world: parental love is carnal; it is in its origin a mere animal instinct, but without it the race would become extinct: the whole machinery of industry is chiefly set in motion by the wants of man to satisfy his natural appetites; * but who ever said that on this account all parental love is animal passion, or all industry a mere matter of the belly? There is probably no such thing as perfect purity in the most exalted instance of virtue, or perfect depravity "C'est la faim, c'est le petit ventre qui fait mouvoir le monde," said Napoleon at St. Helena. in the worst exhibition of vice; human life is a "tangled yarn," good and ill together; the slave who accompanied the victor of yore in his triumphal chariot, typified a principle of degradation within the conqueror's bosom -though "Nero fiddled when Rome was burning," there were softer feelings mingled in his character, for humble gratitude flung flowers on his tomb: when we come to the analysis of the best or the worst of characters, we find equally the apologue of Beauty and the Beast. The spiritual is not essentially hostile to the carnal; it springs from it, and is supported by it. Our duty is not to eradicate natural feeling, but to develope, perfect, transform, purify, ennoble, and spiritualize them. The love of those with whom we are connected by natural ties, so far from being adverse to the formation of universal benevolence, is the only permanent foundation on which it can be based, and the only valid pledge which can be given for its existence. "He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" The apostle's argument is irresistible. But, say some of these universalists, "those who make charity begin at home, frequently make it end there." The sentence is a pretty antithesis, and nothing more: those who quote the hackneyed proverb, "Charity begins at home," as an excuse for hardness of heart abroad, neither begin charity at home nor anywhere else. Follow them to their families and their homes; you will find them exhibiting the same coldness and callousness in the domestic circle which they evince to general humanity. Every generous emotion is in its nature elastic, and naturally labours to widen the sphere of its influence: the first impulse Serves the virtuous mind to wake, But there are minds like stagnant pools whose surface has never been moved, where the undisturbed waters grow putrid and corrupt, until they taint the air with a moral miasma. To such a one, quoting the proverb, "Charity begins at home," it was once justly replied, "Sir, I should be glad to learn that your charity began anywhere." To the rational Owenites, if such exist, it would be sufficient to say that the aggregate happiness of a community must be exactly equal to the sum of the separate felicities of the individuals that compose it. The sophism by which they impose upon themselves is, that society has a right to benefit at the expense of the individual. This is by no means a cruel proposal; it was an acknowledged principle of action in all the Greek republics. Now it would be easy to shew that society has no such right, but it is more important to observe that such a principle would confer no benefit. Suppose a society thus constituted, and every thing must be made to yield to its original institutes. There can be no progress, for enthusiasm and character are equally banished. Enthusiasm can only be generated by freedom of individual action; character can only be formed by spontaneous development. The Owenite tells us that his community will be held together by social love, and at the same time proceeds to banish all natural love, kindliness, and generosity; that is, he proposes to hold mankind in union by a chain, every link of which he has previously unfastened. This is the exact converse of the fable of the old man and the bundle of sticks, for the sticks are to be broken separately before the attempt is made to unite them into a whole. We trust that this little digression will be pardoned, for in shewing the importance of the family in the comparison of barbarism and civilization, it was scarcely possible to avoid noticing the preference shewn for the barbarous usage by some who call themselves civilized men. Unfortunately this preference is not confined to the domestic relations; we shall find, as we proceed, that many of the essential principles of barbarism are advocated by persons who profess to be apostles of civilization. CHAPTER V. SOCIAL RELATIONS-PROPERTY. WE have already seen that the State is simply organized society, without any reference to the legislative or executive power, by which that society is regulated. Government is an additional contrivance to facilitate the execution of the purposes for which society was instituted, and thus it becomes an essential part of the state, but not the state itself. We often see eleven rowers manage a boat without the aid of a helm or steersman, but we know that their labour is lightened, their safety secured, and their certainty of reaching their destination increased by the addition of a rudder. No one, however, asserts the rudder to be the boat, or the pilot the crew. It is of importance to keep this distinction constantly before us, because most writers have confounded the origin of the government with the origin of the state, and have reasoned as if the form came into existence at the same moment with the substance. We have seen that the principle of sociality, natural to man, is first developed in the family; that a little society is formed within the hallowed precincts of the domestic circle, the advantages of which are the more appreciated the more they become the objects of experience and reflection. The prevailing idea in the family, that which renders its association so admirable |