they did not let their right hand know what their left hand did. Others have placed us under much greater obligation to them by repeated acts of kindness, for which we have no words to express our thanks. And first among these, we place the names of Mrs. H. B. Manford and her daughter, Mrs. Dr. Bridge. They remembered us, and come to our aid, whether the weather was brown or light, and the Lord only knows what we should have done without their sympathy and timely aid. To these we wish to add the names Mrs. Myra F. Walker, Mrs. H. F. Monroe, Mrs. Tichenor, and last, but not least, Mrs. J. McFarland-who brought a ray of sunlight into a darkened home, in the form of seventeen new subscribers for our MAGAZINE and $25.50 in money. These were all friends in deed-may the Lord bless them all.

This valuable feature of the Register should not be overlooked. Any person can obtain an Almanac as a gift-but this important information to which we refer, is worth paying for. This feature was first introduced as a distinct department, in the issue for 1862-and we claim to have been the first to suggest it.

Rev. Abel C. Thomas offered a resolution in our General Convention, in 1857; "That a committee of three be appointed to consider the expediency and practibility of issuing a volume of biographical sketches each year, of departed and worthy friends and brethren.

In an article in the New Covenant, of April 3d, 1858, we said: The Universalist Register for this year contains fourteen pages of reading matter besides the almanac and statistics. Had these fourteen pages been devoted to carefully prepared notices of the eight clergymen of our faith who died the year previous, how appropriate it would have been, and how much better for our church at large ?"

EDITORIAL JUTTINGS.

The opening year demands our thoughts, and has duties peculiar to itself. It is a very common thing to wish our neighbors and companions in life's journey, the compliments of the season— nothing is more easily done-it neither taxes our time, our energies, or our resources. But what are all such wishes really worth, unless our conduct show that we have hearts from which the wish eminated-hearts that will prompt us to do for our friends, if they are in sorrow cr want.

-We confess that we are greatly pleased with the brevity and pointed character of the articles that fill this number of our MAGAZINE. They are such as are worth preserving, and we are confident that they will be read and re-read. Such articles as Endless Punishment too terri ble for belief-the Value of Universalism -the Trials of the Poor-(by the sainted Rev. J. S. Brown) and An Experience, contain truths, that are worth their weight in gold.

-Our faith in Universal Salvation is not worth much, and will not do much for us, unless it is stronger than all our secular desires and peevish anger.

-How many men are there among us, who are the enemies of religion because it seems to be against their material interests, and would restrain their appetites and passions?

villain? It is not knowing the truth that benefits a man, but doing it.

-Michelet says: "That love everywhere creates its own country, extends and populates it. With love a man has wings."

-The history of the word Sacrament, is both curious and instructive, Through various changes it comes to signify the oath taken by a Roman soldier to follow his captain, and was thence transferred to the Christian Church, to mean the believer's consecration to Christ his Master.

-Heathen is a familiar word, but its meaning becomes instructive when we know that as the people of old who lived on heaths, or in wild districts, were the last to be Christianized, the name which describes them is now applied to all who are not Christians.

-There was a world of meaning in the reply of Dr. Mason to the skeptic, who was denouncing Christians for their misconduct, when he asked, Would such an uproar be made about the misbehavior of infidels?

-Rev. Abner Vedder requests us to say that his present address is at North Greenfield, Wisconsin. He is spending the winter with his daughter as above.

-Rev. Dr. Cantwell, editor of the Unitersulist of this city, noticed the severe sickness in our family, in the following kind manner for which we are very grateful: Mrs. Tabor, the wife of the editor of MANFORD'S MAGAZINE, has been very seriously sick for the last two weeks. At times her life hung tremblingly in the balance; but thanks to the good Father, and the excellent attention of Dr. Bridge and associates, she is now somewhat better and hope is entertained of her recovery. During her illness Br. Tabor has been constantly at her bedside. His MAGAZINE has been delayed by this serious illness. The December number will probably appear this week. Friends will be patient under the circumstances.

THE BIBLE AND TEMPERANCE. Whatsoever the Bible forbids as sinful it forbids in moderation as well as in excess. When Moses forbade the people to use the flesh of animals that died of themselves, he also forbade them to touch such flesh. And Jesus adds to the command forbidding adultery, this statement: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." So the apostle John adds to the command forbidding murder, by saying: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

The idea in all of these prohibitions is to keep men as far as possible from forbidden objects and real dangers. And so it gives us this general prohibition, "Enter not into the. path of the wicked, and go not into the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away."

The Bible applies this wise rule to the use of intoxicating drinks. Men are forbidding to look upon the wine when it is red or to be among wine bibbers.

It also commands sobriety in the plainest language. The law given to the priesthood furnishes a good illustration of this. The Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, "Do not drink wine or strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the congregation lest ye die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generation." Why was this requirement made, and made perpetual? This is the simple reason given in the context: "That ye may put a difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean. And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses."

But how many there are, who refuse to believe that there are any statutes forbidding the use of the means of intoxication, or anything unholy, or unclean in their And still is it not evident from this

use.

commandment, that the priesthood were to regard the use of the liquids as unholy, and unclean?

Besides, were not the Hebrews a total abstinence people during all their sojourn in the wilderness?

Josephus declares that the Midianitish women sent by the advice of Balaam, to draw the young men of Israel away from the service of the true God, objected to them on the ground, that they did "not drink the kinds of drink common to others." And Moses said when taking his farewell of his people, "I have led you forty years in the wilderness

drink."

ye have not drank wine or strong

And why are these things referred to among the reasons why they should keep all the words of their covenant with the Lord, that they might prosper in all they did, unless it was the desire of their great leader that they should continue to abstain from all that can intoxicate in after time?

And having stated these things, he proceeded to bind them anew both by covenant and oath to observe them. And he also gives his reason for doing so in these words: Lest there should be among you a man, or women, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord your God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he blessed himself in his heart, saying, "I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst; the Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smite against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall be upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven." (Deut. xxix. 18-21.)

I acknowledge myself unable to account for the very evident commendation given

for forty years of total abstainence in the sixth verse of the chapter thus quoted, and the as evident condemnation of the sin of adding drunkenness to thirst, which was to blot out the name of the man, woman, family, or tribe, guilty of it, from under heaven; mentioned in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter, without admitting that the design was to prohibit dissipation and drunkenness.

For has not dissipation been "a root of gall and wormwood" to the human family, from the very first appearance of it among men? and has it not, also, exerted a powerful influence to extinguish the names of those who engaged in it, with their families also, from under the heavens? And was not dissipation, like wise, one of the forms of heathen worship, which the Lord was trying in every way, and by every moral means, to wean his people from? And is it not in perfect harmony, with all of God's dealings with men, that he should forbid them to touch, taste, handle, or even to look upon, the means of intoxication, when their use is sure to produce a condition that excludes from the kingdom of heaven?

THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

A few years ago a Baptist paper of N. E. pictured the Universalist God as a weak dofing grandma, sitting in her old rocking-chair and dealing out sugar plums to her grandchildren regardless of their conduct. A few months later a Rev. Mr. Fish, a Baptist minister of Wisconsin, represented the Universalist God, as cruel, unmerciful, unkind, because he exacted just retribution for all wrong doing, pardoning only sin but never the punishment for sin. Because Universalists believe God to be good, and kind, one party jumped at the conclusion that we do not believe him to be just. And because we believe him just, the other party assumed that we ignored his mercy-while we believe him to possess both these attributes. Justice and mercy

are not at war with each other—God punishes, and at the same time forgives. He punishes to correct, and when the correction takes place the sin is pardoned, overlooked, remembered no more. "Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for thou renderest into every man according to his work."

ANSWERING A FOOL.

B. F. R.

Answering a fool according to his folly." It has long been the custom of Partialist ministers to assume a great deal of dignity-to put on very fine airs, and to appear awfully gracious, that they may create feelings of awe and reverence wherever they go. Some of them have felt called upon, or at liberty to make very impertinent inquiries concerning the duties, and future prospects of those with whom they have associated in life. And they have occasionally been answered in a way to show that the person interrogated understood what the rise man meant when he said, "answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." The following are remarkable instances of this.

In the year 185-, there lived in the town of C, in Livingston Co., N. Y. a very pious widowed lady who was a member of the Methodist Church. Her family consisted of a daughter, who was just verging into womanhood. She was affectionate and dutiful, and as light hearted as the lamb that sports upon the flowery lawn. It happened, in the year above named, that the Methodists held a Quarterly meeting in the town of Cand at the close of the service on Saturday afternoon, the widow invited sev eral of the ministers to go to her house to take tea. They accepted the invitation, and were soon seated in the widow's sitting-room, which (as her house was small), was also used as a dining-room, while the kind widow and her daughter were engaged in preparing the evening meal for them. The ministers were en

gaged in talking over the condition of the Church, while the daughter was passing from the pantry to the table, carrying dishes, and food, and singing and dancing as she went, feeling as lithesome and happy as the lark when he soars heavenward, with his wings bathed in dew, and warbling his sweetest song, to meet the sun as he comes slowly up the Eastern horizon to his midday throne.

But there was a brief pause in her song, for as she was passing from the room, one of the clergymen spoke to her in a very gracious tone of voice, saying, "Madam ?"

She paused and replied, "Did you speak to me, sir?"

"Yes," said he. "What do you think will be your occupation when you get to hell!"

“Oh, sir, VERY MUCH AS IT IS TO DAY— COOKING FOR PREACHERS." And on went the hussie to the performance of her legitimate duties, singing and dancing as though nothing had happened. Of course the reader will not ask what the preacher said-that would be unnatura).

AN EXPOSITION,

"But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damuable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth sball be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."-2 Peter 2: 1, 3.

It will here be seen that those who were reserved unto judgment to be punished, were in Peter's day, to bring upon themselves swift destruction. Does this justify us in supposing that the day of judgment to these people, and to their subsequent destruction have not only not yet arrived,

but will not arrive until the Lord knows when? See further. "Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." Do we not, by putting off this judgment and damnation to some future and utterly unknown period, represent that their judgment did linger for a long time, a very long time, and that their damnation slumbered equally as long? It is said the sacred writers call this time of judgment," the day of judgment--the last day-that day--and the great day." Now we all allow this. Did the sacred writers mean that this last day was in eternity? Hear the author of the epistles to the Hebrews: "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners spoke in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Peter says, Christ was manifest "in these last times." Paul says it was in the end of the world." 1 Peter 1: 19, 20. Heb. 9: 26. Jude says, "there shall be mockers in the last time," and immediately adds, "these be they who separate themselves." Verses 18, 19. John with perfect confidence asserts, "Little children, it is the last time, and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time.” John 2: 18. It seems, then, that the last day, in the Bible sense of the term, passed by long, long ago.

NOT CONSISTENT.

The writer was at Grinnell, Iowa, a few hours after the great cyclone disaster occurred there several years ago. On call ing upon a friend who had been seriously injured by the cyclone, he met a lady, a member of the Congregational Church there, who stated that two families had refused to open their homes to the recep tion of injured parties, one saying that it would disturb her sleeping baby to admit a wounded man. This Congregationalist lady was very severe on such conduct as every Christian should be. She thought

these families were heathenish, cruel, mean, inhuman.

But how about her God, who, according to her theology, would leave millions out of this kingdom, whose souls were all bruised and bleeding because of the ravages of sin? This lady's heart was infinitely better than her religion. If she was indignant over the conduct of these families, how could she believe in a God who would shut the doors of heaven for ever against his own children whose characters had been bruised and blackened through the cyclones of sin, and wrong, and misfortune? Perhaps this lady would say, as did the little girl, that "this being is God, and so has a right to be thus cruel, while man has no such right."

B. F. R.

IS MARRIAGE A FAILURE? The question placed at the head of this paper, has been receiving special attention for some months past at the hands of the secular press. Many interviews have been published with women whose names are before the public in one way or another, designed to show that mar riage is really a failure in their opinion.

But to the observant philosopher, this matter of marriage has become a sort of test in the examination of every new scheme of social or religious life; and it may safely be calculated that any scheme which interferes with Christian marriage -which designs to interfere with its prevalence and freedom, or reflects upon its honor and purity, or undermines its sacredness, or cheapens its obligationsis either intentionally or mistakenly ununchristian, and opposed to the welfare of human society; sometimes the former, often the latter.

It is an self-evident fact, that men and women were made to live together in Christian marriage; and that if marriage is really a failure, it is primarily the failure of the Creator; for he both ordained it, and made it possible. It is likewise