Christ in the regeneration, utterly forbids' the gratification of "fleshly lusts which war against the soul."

B. This is the most cutting of all. Before I adopt this sentiment, you will have many formidable objections to answer,-more, I think, than you will be able to meet. Nothing short of the most powerful conviction, can bring me into an order, which imposes such severe restrictions.

M. I would not wish you, nor any other person, to adopt my views, without conviction, But I mistake your character, if you do not yield to the force of evidence, however directly it may cross your prepossessions.

B. I do not know what the result may be in such a case; but I have but little reason to believe you will satisfy my mind, on this point; and, to tell the truth, I feel a desire that you may not answer the objections I = shall bring, altogether to my satisfaction.

M. I perceive the coilings of the serpent in your very expressions. I am glad to see him roused up. This testimony breaks up the fountain of iniquity. In removing a dead carcase, the vermin that feed upon it, are generally disturbed. The cross of Christ would not be so offensive to many, if consistent with it, they could gratify one darling propensity. This "Man of sin," does not like to be disturbed. He contends for every inch of ground, and does not leave his seat, till forced by one that is stronger than he. I wish you to present the strongest objections in your power, and they shall have their full force. The truth of God is on my side; and no weapon formed against it, can prosper. Goliath, of Gath, though covered with mail, fell prostrate before the stripling of Israel; and should you be slain in this engagement, " You will die to live, and live to die no more." Had I been governed by my natural inclinations, I should not have listened to the testimony of truth, though presented with the clearness of light, and the plainness of demonstration. But by its overpowering energy, every "refuge of lies was swept away," and I was ferreted from every "hiding-place," to which my natural propensities impelled me to resort. And it is my belief, should you yield to the force of evidence, you will be driven to the same extremity.

B. I have not forgotten the pledge given at the commencement of this interview. I shall strictly adhere to it, to the very letter. And, should you convince me of the truth of your testimony, however crossing it may be to my natural inclinations; I will embrace it, both in theory and practice.

M. This is a laudable resolution. Without it, there is but little use arising from any discussion. It is natural for man to invent excuses for impure, and even criminal indulgence. Therefore the person contending for this testimony, according to the vulgar saying, has the laboring oar. Ancient authorities, both sacred and profane, as well as the customs and usages of by gone ages, are eagerly sought for, to countenance the gratification of lust. And even the professed followers of Christ are the most clamorous advocates of this beastly indulgence.

B. I would not, knowingly, contend for criminal indulgence; and still it is a fact, I am at a loss to conceive how the gratification of lust can comport with purity. In this argument, I labor under a disadvan

tage. I am endeavoring to support a practice which shuns the light of day. I have not that confidence which I otherwise should have; but yet I believe there is sufficient evidence from scripture and reason, in favor of natural generation.

M. I commend your candor, and would seriously ask, whether it is reasonable to conclude, that such a work is compatible with the purity of the gospel?

B. We have the express command of God to "increase and multiply, and replenish the earth." Was it not the design of God, that the earth should be peopled by natural generation? And is it a sin to conform, in this respect, to the divine command?

M. I would answer, Is it reasonable to suppose, that God would command us to perform an impure act? You have voluntarily expressed your embarrassment. You should not attribute this to me, but to the cause you are endeavoring to sustain. I know where you stand, and the cause of your want of confidence. You are contending for that which your conscience tells you is killing to the life of the spirit.

B. But would God command us to do what has a tendency to such a result?

M. By no means. It is the command of a holy God, and was made to Adam in the day of his innocence. It was given to Adam before Eve was taken from his side. "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." Gen. i: 27, 28. Had Adam acted up to the dignity of his nature, which was pronounced good, as coming from the hand of God, in fulfilling this command, there could have been no transgression; but instead of this, the faculty of generation was corrupted at the very fountain, and brought into subjection to the inordinate passion of lust, a passion which still maintains, in the natural man, its power and influence. Instead of acting from the pure desire of propagating his species, and conforming to the times and seasons that nature prescribes; man's chief motive has been to gratify his lawless propensities. This is a truth that bids defiance to contradiction. It is confirmed by the testimony of every rational being, from the beginning of the creation, to the present day. From this circumstance, it is easy to ascertain the nature of the divine prohibition. The whole circumstances relating to the first apostacy, are highly figurative. The garden of Eden, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, are the same now that they were then. That person must be very benighted, indeed, who supposes that the garden of Eden was a literal garden, or that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, were literal trees. Is it rational to believe, that Eve was tempted by a snake, to reach forth her hand and pluck the fruit from an apple tree, or any other tree? Such an animal, we should suppose, would be the least likely to tempt a woman successfully.

The curse denounced on the woman is illustrative of the nature of the transgression. "And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." And unto the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Adam and Eve were both naked when they stood in their innocency, and were strangers to the sense of shame; but after they transgressed, they made an ineffectual effort to hide themselves. "They knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Why did not the sense of shame fall on the hand that plucked the fruit, or the mouth that ate it? They covered the seat of the transgression; and all their posterity, from a similar cause, have done the same.

B. I am wholly satisfied that your views, as to the nature of the transgression, are perfectly correct.

M. To be consistent, then, you should acknowledge that generation is excluded from the new creation; nor can those who are engaged in that work, be considered the real followers of Christ. Or would you contend, that instead of following Christ, in the regeneration, we should follow old Adam in sinning in perpetuo ?

B. But what would become of the world, should all adopt your views and live in accordance to them, in this respect? The earth, in about a century, would be unpeopled. I look upon this as a necessary consequence of the universal adoption of your views. I cannot, therefore, see my way clear to come into your order.

M. Should all engage in war, and continue the strife, the earth, in a short time, would be unpeopled; and yet, I do not know that any seriously object to it, on account of the earth being depopulated. Thousands and tens of thousands may be slain in battle, and yet there are no apprehensions that the world, in consequence, will come to an end; but if here and there an individual embrace the cross of Christ, by "crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts," the "hue and cry" is immediately raised, "the world will come to an end." I do not mention this to answer your objection any otherways than to show that it does not arise from the apprehension that the world, in reality, will be void of inhabitants. I would now put a question to you, and expect a candid answer. Did you enter the marriage state from the pure motive of propagating your species; and was this the only incentive, by which you were urged to take upon yourself the burthen of a family'

B. This is a home question, I will acknowledge; and, as I cannot use deception, I must confess that, that was not my predominant motive. M. There is not an honest man on the face of the globe, who would not give a similar answer. This confession demonstrates, to my mind, that it is not so much the fear of the world coming to an end, that this objection is so zealously urged, as the apprehension, that a period must be put to sensual gratification. You have expressed a sentiment, in some part of this interview, that in the millennium, generation would cease, as incompatible with Christ's reign on the earth, or with the purity of those who reign with him. This is a sentiment generally adopted by commentators; but so clung are they, in general, to the works of the flesh, that should that glorious day arrive, according to their views of it, they would be among the foremost to oppose it. According to their theory, and according to your own concession, the world must come to an end.

Many profess to believe, that the world is destined to be consumed by fire; and by it, the wicked are either to be annihilated, or to suffer

3

its flames, ad infinitum. And yet, the more rational conclusion, that it will be brought to an end by the work of regeneration, is spurned at as irrational, and the greatest fears are hypocritically expressed, that the world will come to an end. You, perhaps, may say, that this does not answer your objection. I will acknowledge it; but still, I am prepared to meet it with all its force. On so weighty a subject as this, there should be no equivocation.

B. You must acknowledge, that should all come into your order, cities, in time, would be without inhabitants, and the most beautiful parts of the earth would become a dreary waste.

M. Many great and populous cities have become depopulated, in consequence of their wickedness; and what once constituted the very heart of the Assyrian monarchy, is now an uncultivated wilderness. I am of the opinion, that this beautiful country will yet be peopled by a race far different from its former inhabitants. You have, in fact, sup posed a miracle, and urged it as an objection to my views. It is a fair principle in all controversy, to make use of the weapons of an opponent, to his disadvantage. I have a right to suppose another miracle in answer to your objection. God can people the earth in any way that he chooses, and that, too, consistent with his holiness and purity.

B. Have you not acknowledged, that it was the design of God to people the earth by ordinary generation? Is it reasonable to suppose, that he will deviate from his original design?

M. The attention reverts to the ground we have passed over. Had man conducted, in this respect, agreeably to the design of God in the beginning, it would have been a holy act, and consequently, would not have been productive of shame. It is like, that produces like. Instead of peopling the earth with a race of murderous Cains, our first Parents would have generated an offspring in their own image, pure and holy. Whoever examines the New Testament with respect to the order of the new Creation, will perceive that the end of the world came upon those who were lively stones in the Temple of God. Not the end of the (Kosmos) literal world, but the end of those darling objects, that engross the attention, and occupy a prominent seat in the affections of the giddy multitude, "The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life." Those who walked not after the flesh, but after the spirit, were crucified to these. These were the "rudiments of the world," to which Paul considered himself dead.

If by ordinary generation, you mean to convey the idea, that the gratification of lust, whether sanctioned by a legal ceremony, or not, is designed of God as the approved method of generating offspring, and peopling the earth, I deny it, in toto. All must acknowledge, that mankind, as it relates to the gratification of the flesh, are very far from acting in reference to God's glory. The professed Christian may put on a sanctimonious air; but in this, he is governed by the same impulse, with the confirmed libertine. Both consider darkness indispensably necessary for the accomplishment of a work, for which they imagine they have the command of a holy God. And, in fact, I consider darkness an appropriate figure to represent a work, that invariably shuns the light of day.

B. Are we not informed, by one of the Evangelists, that Christ attended a marriage feast, in Cana of Gallilee, and, as a token of his

approbation, turned water into wine? This affords satisfactory evidence to me, that he did not view this subject in the light in which you have presented it.

M. The Saviour, on a variety of occasions, associated with the "children of this world ;" but are we to infer from this, that he countenanced their peculiar practices? Marriage and the work appertaining to it, belong to that world, to which both Christ and his apostles, were crucified. I do not pretend, that either expressly condemned it, in the order where it belonged.

B. There appears to be more consistency in your views, than I at first imagined. But still, the Saviour would not have given his signal approbation to a work, unless it had been a good work.

M. I would ask, where you get your evidence of signal approbation? B. The first evidence is, he attended the Marriage.

M. He associated with publicans and sinners; but do you suppose that he countenanced their evil practices ?

B. I certainly do not; but Christ, on that occasion, turned water into wine. This is an additional evidence, that he cordially approbated the marriage.

M. It is said, that it was the usual practice to bring the poorest wine after the guests had "well drunken." Why should we not infer from this, according to your logic, that he countenanced intemperance?

B. There is something to be considered in this, I confess. I have always looked upon this case, as a very strong circumstantial evidence against your views of Christian celibacy.

M. We are informed for what object, "this beginning of miracles" was performed; not to approbate the works of the flesh, or to countenance the foolish ceremony by which it is pretended to be sanctified; but to manifest his glory, that his disciples might believe on him.

B. This puts quite a different light upon the subject, to be sure; and, though it tends to weaken my objection, it does not fully answer it. There is no evidence, taking the whole circumstances together, that Christ exhibited any token of disapprobation; but rather the reverse.

M. This was prior to Christ's entering on his public ministry, although, on a variety of occasions, he had given proof of his supernatural powers. There is satisfactory evidence of this in one" circumstance," which, perhaps, escaped your notice. "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." He did not say, Mother-but Woman! What have I to do with thee. The hour is yet to come, when I shall strike a death-blow to the world with all its rudiments. This was the death that Christ died; and it was through this death, that he destroyed him that had the power of death.

The natural Mother of Jesus appeared to be very officious on that occasion; and I appeal to your decision, whether the reply of Christ is not the language of reproof. A certain Deistical writer construes this as an evidence of a want of common courtesy, and draws the inference, that Christ was "grossly impudent to his own mother!" I readily acknowledge, that there would be too much truth in the above satire, pro