Mr. Ballou asks, in our discussion, what "need" there is of Free Love, - and what "good" will come of it? Even admitting my mind argument, of the non-exclusive nature of the connubial attraction, he virtually asks what utility will come of such free-dom. Others, who read us, will ask the same question. 'We reply - the normal action of every faculty and every law of mind, is always of utility. A similar "need" exits, and a similar "good" will follow the freeing of this, which results from the free action of every other faculty. Such freedom is always strengthening, refining, and elevating. It is so, and will be so on this, in its temperate, healthy, and free action. The diseased action of any faculty may bring untold evil. One man, or one woman, may live alone - a hermit. So one man and one woman may live in entire isolation from all other society; but such dual hermitage is not natural. It more or less starves all the human faculties. That state of mind which, from choice, selects such a situation, is sickly and contracted. No man and woman can progress, and elevate themselves, as easily, and as fully, in such disconnection from all others. A variety in the action of every feature of connubial love, is refining and elevating. Love always elevates and refines.

Of course, a variety in this should be governed by the most exalted wisdom. So should the action, and the variety in adhesiveness. When, and so far as, the latter is not, it dissipates and debases. Each faculty has its proper laws, and its "natural restraints," but not to absolute exclusiveness. Some minds, in a healthy state, require more society than others. I will be understood, if I have to write "line upon line - precept upon precept." We insist that, as our philosophy deals alike with every faculty, and is in harmony with itself, while that of our opponents does not - and is not, - it is for those who make the exception, to prove their exception. And we urge - we entreat the friends of exclusive marriage, to deal less with uncertain consequences, and more with God's eternal laws of order" as read in the philosophy of mind. We here say - once, and we hope, for all, - we do not consider mere inferences from history, especially any history which we can obtain, as direct argument, or as sufficient to meet and refute the settled or sure princples of mind.

One more allusion to the discussion, and we pass to Mr. Ballou's book. We record a noticable coincidence. While Mr. B. was laboring to destroy our analogy between the human faculties, by comparing the act of coition in man "with animals in common," his friend Hewitt was arguing in his (Mr. Hewitt's) paper, in opposition to certain supposed or real Free Love defenders, - that because animals were promiscuous, it was no evidence that man should be. Not one word does Mr. H. write directly to prove his own dual order. (On what grounds shall this always be taken for granted?) A Lady steps in here, and intimates, if man was like the animals, there would be no good objection to a "variety." Our unknown fair one, (she does not favor us with her name) writes, - "Remove the restraints of reason and conscience imposed by love, and there is no reason why animal passion should not claim a variety." To us this is an entire negation of Mr. Ballou's analogy, - and yet he becomes her very ready endorser. (See P. Christian, Dec. 30, 1854.) So does Mr. Wright. Where shall we find our opponents in relation to this animal argument? We hope their whereabouts will be better settled on so important a point, before we have occasion to print another edition of our book. It will so much shorten our labor.

We did not allude to the animal, except in reply to Mr. Ballou. We did not consider it necessary in a discussion about man. Still it was not improper. We ask our opponents then what position the animal is to hold in the future of this controversy. We choose at present to follow. It is not fair that the same opponent should hang on to these opposite horns at the same time, or change as seeming necessity requires.

Reader, in making the use which I have of the discussion, - I have taken the utmost care not to do Mr. Ballou any injustice, and if, in any thing, or in any statement, he thinks I am incoorrect, I ask him to point it out to me, and I will explain or retract, as the truth may require. Though we are wide apart as professed reformers, I am still his personal friend, and I suppose him to be a friend to me. We both deal sharply with what we conceive to be the errors and faults of our friends. Mr. Ballou had felt it to be his duty, as a leader and reformer, (I consider him a law reformer), to arraign and condemn all Free Love doctrines and practices. This became more frequent and severe, in his paper. I could and did sympathise with him in part, in relation to some of the evils connected with Free Love, as with dual marriage, in the present undeveloped and perverted state of the race. But he made no exception. He seemed to feel himself called in conscience to do what he could to exterminate it, as a whole, and in all of its parts. I visited him. We spent hours in friendly, but in private discussion. I asked him, if ever he gave the subject a full and fair hearing in his paper, as he had before this given every other question of great interest, - to discuss it with me.

When he thought the time had come, and was at leasure to do so, he accepted my friendly challenge, and the discussion followed.

I fully admit there are many evils now connected 6 with Free Love. Injustice is sometimes done under its cloak. But I believe its friends will " learn wisdom by the things which they suffer," and rise to a greater and better harmony. I know some have so risen. So far, the various efforts at community have caused great suffering and loss of property. Perhaps some half a million has been expended, and some over twenty societies failed, during the last twenty years. And yet we think the effort has been worth all it has cost. Free Love has not done as bad, or been more a failure. Community and Free Love, are both alive and in good health in some places. The real good in both will be saved, and rise. The chaff should be blown away by the winnowing of Providence. So let it be. We were some disappointed in Mr. Ballou on the subject of our discussion, after all, but it was not his fault. He had always been a frank and open spoken man on all subjects which he met.