Had they been spared, it might have been said, they were with Samuel in having been chosen and protected by the Lord.

In the words of Brother Balfour, "It ought to be observed, that this account is not given in honor of Saul's character, but to show the wicked, superstitious course he pursued when he forsook Jehovah and his laws. It is delivered to us in the popular language of those times. If the facts were communicated by Saul or any of his servants, we must expect them given, according to their own superstitious notions, which influenced them at the time. If furnished by the woman herself, no one could expect her to expose her art, and tell us it was all a piece of deception. Should we receive this account as supernatural, and that Samuel's ghost actually appeared and conversed with Saul, it involves very serious consequences. It destroys the criterion of judgment between a true and a false prophet. It also teaches, that God gave countenance to an impostor on this occasion, against whom he had denounced the most severe judgments. We must then also believe, that though God refused to consult with Saul at his camp at Gilboa in any shape, yet he answered him at Endor by a ghost, brought up from the dead by a heathen impostor, whom he, by God's express commandment, had banished from Canaan. Admit what many build on this passage, and no good man is allowed to rest from his labors in peace. Admit what they say, and ghosts not only visit our world, but some persons have the power to bring them here at pleasure. Admit it, and we

are carried back to all the superstitious notions of the heathen, and yet are commanded by the Almighty to have nothing to do with them."

The yet popular doctrine of a real, personal devil is as certainly of heathen origin, as is the doctrine of witchcraft. The popular notions about the devil, and his influence over men, is so similar to the evil deity of Zoroaster, and the disposition and actions ascribed to him, are so much like those ascribed to his evil deity, that there is no mistaking the likeness. The modern popular notions of the devil, were, therefore, evidently derived from Zoroaster, the reviver of the ancient Persian religion.

The doctrine of a formal trial and judgment after death, for the works done in this world, may be clearly traced to Pagan Rome, thence to the poetic Greeks, thence to Egypt where it was born of one of their civic customs.

It is equally certain that the doctrine of future endless retribution was derived from the same source. Its most popular advocates of the present day, virtually claim for it this very origin. They say, the Universalists are even worse, that is, in their religious doctrines, than the heathen are. For they add, even the heathen know better than to deny future retribution.

Now it will not be seriously pretended that the heathens borrowed their ideas from Christianity. Hence it certainly follows that this identical doctrine originated with them. And as converts to christianity multiplied from the ranks of Paganism, that doctrine came into the church. The advocates of future endless retribution do

accord with the heathens in this respect, and they are most cordially welcome to all the honor gained thereby. We are happy to differ from them.

A FRAGMENT.

Ask the Methodist, what is his opinion respecting the utility or inutility of controversy when Universalism is to constitute a party in the combat? Nothing can be more inconsistent than disputations among Christians. He now thinks every one entitled to the unmolested enjoyment of his own opinion. Controversies, he thinks, are never useful. They generate a bad state of feeling and serve only to widen the distance between the conflicting parties. But place a votary of Calvin before him and he is ready for the combat. He begins to talk of the horrible doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, and his voice is decidedly "for war." He brandishes his burnished Jerusalem blade, and mounts upon the breastwork of the universal atonement and wields a blow which, to say the least, means that Jesus tasted death for every man.”

AN ESSAY ON CONVERSATION.

Read before the Philadelphia Lyceum.

CONVERSATION, in its widest sense, embraces the whole range of communication between intellect and intellect. It is understood, in a restricted sense, to mean the interchange of our ideas, knowledge and emotions through the medium of speech. This is the signification to which my remarks are intended to apply.

In power to mould and influence society, conversation is second to no instrument in human hands. Propelled by truth and wafted on the waves of virtue and good will to man, it is one of the most charming and happifying blessings with which human nature is endowed. Urged by malice and tossed on the dark surges of passion, it tramples upon the blossoms of existence and withers the hopes of society. When it drops like the gentle rain or distils like the dew, it calls out and decorates all the loveliness of the human heart. When it bursts in wrath or burns in bitterness, it is like the deluging tempest or blasting wind.

The press, that potent engine of thought, receives its tone and general tendency from the current of conversation. In vain we attempt to push its influence beyond the channels or away from the direction opened and pursued by its pioneer, the more potent and lordly energy of

6

the tongue.' Look upon those mouldy volumes beneath which the library shelves have groaned for years! Why sleep they there? Because conversation has pronounced them stupid or false; or because it has neglected to shake from them the dust and bookworm, by commending them to the student's or antiquary's attention. Yes! and there would lie the trash and treasures of the press, in unbroken neglect, did not the spirit of inquiry, awakened by conversation, recall them to life.

Let conversation demand a change in the character of the press, and the press will prove itself subservient. Let common talk consign a portion of it to contempt, and that portion ceases to live. The man who can talk well need not

fear the press. He can engage living books to speak his merits, and lisping news-papers to publish his fame. He can exclude the unsavory gazette from the circle of his influence, or make the printed herald welcome where it was once a stranger. Let it then be understood, that we who talk, and not they who print, are responsible for the character of the press. The press must ascertain the will of the public voice, in most instances, before it can speak with safety or success; and so it generally does; for, we may often know more of the feelings of a man by the books and papers he wants to read than by those he has read. Become acquainted with a family; examine their collection of books. What have you ascertained respecting their present tastes? Converse with them; ask them what they think about the late theatrical per