schemes of human moralists. Supplying their innumerable defects, it purifies and refines them from the infirmity and corruption with which most or all were deeply tinctured. But it does not annul, what in them was useful and important; it does not repeal, what was of real obligation; it does not condemn, what was innocent or safe.

SHIP.

These remarks may be applied, as far as admitted to be just, in vindication of FRIENDThis has been represented, as one of the "fictitious virtues, which have really no intrinsick merit in them, and are totally incompatible with the genius and spirit of the christian religion."* It cannot be uninteresting or unuseful to examine the justice of this sentence, preparatory to the main object of the present discourse; which is, to treat of the innocent pleasures, the important benefits, and sacred obligations of true friendship. We have all probably formed its tender attachments; most of us fondly cherish them, as

*"A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion": by Soame Jenyns, esq.-Works, Lond. 8vo. 1790, vol. iv. pp. 290. See Prop III. p. 34, 35, 40, 41. Shaftesbury, whose fine powers were unhappily exerted against the cause which the other would defend, has adduced the supposed omission of this virtue as a capital defect in the code of evangelical ethicks. Characteristicks, I. p. 93, &c.

allowed by duty, while we feel, that they promote our happiness. But precious as is this sentiment, dear as are the delights which it bestows; closely entwined as it is around our hearts, yet if it be a plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, it must be rooted up. If found to interfere with allegiance to our Divine Redeemer, incorporated as it may be with our inmost soul, it must be torn thence, whatever violence the effort may demand, whatever anguish the separation may inflict. Costly as the sacrifice may prove, it must be still made, and made willingly. Be it the right hand? If in rebellion to Jesus, and his law, cut it off! The right eye? If it rove in indifference, or flash in hostility to HIM, pluck it out! Let no love, alien from Him, be cherished; no sentiment, disapproved by Him, be indulged; no action or enjoyment, unauthorized by Him, be allowed.

What is to be understood by the FRIEND, who is as our own soul? They who undervalue friendship, attempt to justify their censure, by confounding it with the excesses, by which it is sometimes accompanied or followed. The exclusion of this, from the class of real and important virtues, must be chiefly

predicated on a partial definition. The argument begins with a begging of the question. Admit that it is *" narrow and confined, and appropriates that benevolence to a single object, which is commanded to be extended over all;" allow that "alliances in parties, factions, and interests are its usual parents;" and who will withhold assent from the inference, that it is "mischievous and criminal, and consequently forbidden by our pure and holy religion." But we solemnly protest both against the premises and the conclusion. It must be granted, indeed, that like every good it may be, and often is, abused; that, like filial, and fraternal, and conjugal,and parental affection, it may be indulged to a criminal extreme. As "the perversion of the best things is most pernicious," its excess may tend to produce some of the evils alleged ; still it is believed and contended that, in itself, it is innocent; in its effects, beneficial; and that, while consonant to the nature, wants, and interests of man, it is abundantly supported and sanctioned, if not by direct injunctions, yet by numerous implied commendations, and the highest examples, in the scriptures both of the Old and New Testament.

* Jenyns, p. 40, 41.

To avoid the mistake, which its eloquent accuser appears to have committed, of giving a definition accommodated to his particular view; it is safest to recur to the standard authorities. They, who have no purpose to ́subserve, but whose only object is to give information of the legitimate and established meaning of words, describe it-" The state of minds united together by mutual benevolence; the highest degree of intimacy;"* "The connexion with those whom we love and esteem above others; to whom we impart our minds from a confidence of their integrity and good will."+"The cleaving of our affections to all with whom we have frequent pleasing intercourses, with mutual obligations, is the foundation of friendship, which yet cannot subsist long, but among the truly religious."

Is not such a union allowable ? It seems evidently dictated by the constitution and necessities, desires and tastes of human beings. Man is weak, and needs help. Absolutely

* Johnson, Samuel, Dict. and Barclay, Walker, Sheridan.

† Cruden's Concordance, Friend.

Hartley, David, "Observations on Man," &c. 4to. Lond. 1791. pp. 756.-Part II. Prop. 169, p.486.

and totally dependent in infancy, without the care of the best earthly friend, the little animal would inevitably perish. Fostered and nurtured by maternal affection and care; guarded and guided by the partner, on whom devolves the joint solicitude and toil and happiness of education, the child is preserved. The body advances in vigour, and is trained to habits of salutary exercise and useful labour. The mind-the ethereal, immortal part, is directed to a right exertion of its noble faculties, learns to employ its vast capacities; and thus is matured the intellectual and moral man. Thrown on the protection, and help, and regard of connexions at the commencement of this probation, man during its continuance finds great occasion for assistance from others. Strong inclinations concur, with all the estimates of duty and calculations of interest, t lead us to form associations with one another. We thus extend the pleasures and benefits, which flow from the relations of consanguinity. These voluntary compacts are of various degrees of closeness and tenderness; and as various, are the obligations which they impose, the blessings they confer. They are not to be allowed to interfere with