the means of rendering respectable the grossest lusts; that there is no Christian difference between lust within and lust without the forms of wedlock; that the individual who looks upon another with a lustful desire, when tried by the standard of Jesus, is an adulterer, whether sustaining the external marital relation or not.
In speaking of the abuses of this institution, I would not have them abate their zeal by ceasing to proclaim its infidelity to that inward purity of soul so essential to the true Christian union; but I would have them make a very different use of the fact.
The use which many, and perhaps most of those who oppose the external institution of marriage make of its lustful abuses, is rather to palliate the conduct of those who are lustful outside of its license, by showing that, at heart, they do not differ from those who indulge in the same lustful desires and exercises under its licentious permission; thus very naturally taking license, and, when censured by others, pleading the respectable guilt of others as their excuse.
In speaking of the abuses of the marriage institution, I would not plead them in mitigation of lust; nor would I make them the occasion of license. I would refer to them for the purpose of condemning more strongly the foul practice of seeking gratification in that direction.
It is not to be objected to the external institution of marriage that under its sanction the grossest of lusts are practiced in the name of virtue, and that the weightiest evils are the result. Such is not the fault of the institution, but of those who use it for that purpose; and were it not for the institution, under the present lustful condition of society, the same practice
