Two expressions occur in the foregoing summaries which need some explanation; viz., in the first, the word Spiritualist; and in the second, the term Free Love. Without explanation, the modern reader might suppose these expressions to be used in the sense commonly attached to them at the present time. But if he will consider that the articles in The Berean were first published long before the birth of Modern Spiritualism, and that Bible Communism was published long before the birth of Free Love among Spiritualists, he will see that these expressions do not mean in the above documents, what they mean in popular usage, and do not in any way connect the Oneida Community with Modern Spiritualists, or with their system of Free Love. The simple truth is, that the Putney school invented the term Spiritualist to designate all believers in immediate communication with the spiritual world, referring at the time specially to Perfectionists and Revivalists, and marking the distinction between them and the legalists of the churches; and they invented the term Free Love to designate the social state of the Kingdom of Heaven as defined in Bible Communism. Afterward these terms were appropriated and specialized by the followers of Andrew Jackson Davis and Thomas L. Nichols. The Oneida Communists have for many years printed and re-printed in their various publications the following protest, which may fitly close this account of their religious and social theories:
FREE LOVE.
[From the Hand-Book of the Oneida Community.]
"This terrible combination of two very good ideas—freedom and love—was first used by the writers of the Oneida Community about twenty-one years ago, and probably originated with them. It was however soon taken up by a very different class of speculators scattered about the country, and has come to be the name of a form of socialism with which we have but little affinity. Still it is sometimes applied to our Communities; and as we are certainly responsible for starting it into circulation, it seems to be our duty to tell what meaning we attach to it, and in what sense we are willing to accept it as a designation of our social system.
"The obvious and essential difference between marriage and licentious connections may be stated thus:
"Marriage is permanent union. Licentiousness deals in temporary flirtations.
"In marriage, Communism of property goes with Communism of persons. In licentiousness, love is paid for as hired labor.
"Marriage makes a man responsible for the consequences of his acts of love to a woman. In licentiousness, a man imposes on a woman the heavy burdens of maternity, ruining perhaps her reputation and her health, and then goes his way without responsibility.
"Marriage provides for the maintenance and education of children. Licentiousness ignores children as nuisances, and leaves them to chance.