They differ also in the extent of their benevolent influence. The one from the very nature of the case is limited to a single country, and has in view at most the good of only a few hundred thousand individuals. The other is world-wide in its interests; it knows no bounds. It regards alike the well being of the Pagan, the Mohammedan, and the enlightened Christian. It grasps the world in its embrace, and looks upon the remotest of the human family as a brother. Like the sun in his course, it would leave no haunt of wretchedness unvisited by its cheering beams of sympathy; and, like him, it returns again and again to the lonely hovel, and smiles upon its miserable occupants. But a still more important difference regards the amount of self-denial requisite for carrying out the two principles. A man may be a good Patriot without ever leaving the bosom of his country-separating himself from friends, or even descending from the higher walks of life. His duties, from their very nature and their relations to society, are well adapted to procure popular favor, as well as to gratify self. True, he is sometimes summoned to the field of battle, and called, it may be, to lay down his life for his country. But it is amid the dazzling glory of military honors, and loud acclamations of applause from admiring countrymen. Especially was this the case in former times, when he was oftenest called to meet such a fate.

Not so with the Philanthropist. A far distant shore witnesses his deprivations and sufferings; sufferings too in behalf of those who may never return a solitary expression of gratitude; nay, who perhaps will imbrue in his blood those very hands which he has been loading with bounty. Or should he not go to a land of strangers, his employment, as he visits the wretched inmates of the hospital and the almshouse, or like the immortal Howard, wanders from cell to cell, bearing joy to the lonely prisoner long since weary of life; often brings him in contact with all that is loathsome and disgusting to the eye, or painful to the heart.

They differ inasmuch as the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. The Patriot is so often and sorely beset with temptations and appeals to his selfish and baser passions, that his love of country too frequently degenerates, until at length he is no longer a Patriot, except in name. Others who bear this title, may never from the first have breathed one sincere desire for their country's welfare. The first of these is sacrificing Patriotism, principle, every thing, on the altar of party; the latter bending every energy to obtain the loaves and fishes of office.

On the contrary, the Philanthropist, though he may sometimes be actuated by wrong motives, or hurried madly onward by zeal without knowledge, has comparatively few inducements of a selfish nature to urge him to action. If he remain at home, his deeds of charity will often be of a retiring character, unnoticed except by him who receives them, and unrewarded save by that Being who "seeth in secret." If he leave his country, he will as frequently be stigmatized as a fanatic and a madman; at least he will carry with him the sympathies of but few of his fellow-men. Under such circumstances, not many will de

vote their lives for the benefit of their race; unless a genuine love of Mankind, nearly resembling what the Apostle Paul calls "charity," ardently burns in their hearts.

Again, they differ in respect to their uniformity. At a time when a country is threatened with a foreign invasion, Patriotism glows in an unusual degree in every bosom. Old and young are ready to rally around the standard of liberty, and freely spill their blood in its defense; and, as was the case during our own struggle for independence, even the female sex may exhibit an ardent devotion to their country's cause, without incurring reproach or overstepping the bounds of propriety. Nay, they may even merit the highest applause, for their welldirected efforts in the cause of freedom. At such a time, therefore, the balance of feeling may, and of right should preponderate in favor of Patriotism. Whereas, at another time, comparatively few of all the individuals in a given country, need bestow any special attention on that country's welfare.

But the love of Mankind is far more uniform in its nature. Its reign should be constant and universal, pervading alike the hearts of both sexes and all ages. Like the fires that burned upon the altars of Vesta, it should never be permitted to grow dim. But so long as our race are exposed to suffering-so long as there is a broken heart to be bound up, or a tear to be wiped away-it should be present, to prompt us to compassionate that suffering, and to endeavor to exchange that tear for the smile of happiness; and this will be as long as sin shall mar the beauty of the earth, and leave its stamp of woe and wretchedness impressed upon the human heart.

It remains for us to speak of the consistency of these two principles. And here we are met with the broad assertion, that Patriotism is inconsistent with Christianity itself, and of course inconsistent with Philanthropy, which is one of the features in which Christianity reveals itself to the world. It has even been declared, by at least one noted sceptic, (M. Bayle,) that "a state composed of real Christians could not exist." This has lead to a more thorough examination of the subject, and, strange to tell, some professed believers have come to the conclusion, that a spirit of Patriotism is nowhere recommended in the word of God, and, consequently that the exercise of it is a sin, and that all human governments are a mere nullity, or directly opposed to the spirit of the gospel.

Space would not permit us to linger on these several points, nor are they necessarily involved in the subject we have chosen. We leave it for others to determine whether there can be found on the pages of profane history, a more noble example of disinterested Patriotism, than that of the Hebrew Lawgiver, throughout his whole course; and particularly on those occasions when, notwithstanding the offer made to himself of becoming "a greater nation and a mightier than they," his attachment to his people led him to throw himself between them and their incensed Sovereign, and to intercede in their behalf, in this unparalleled strain :-"Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast

written." Or whether a more beautiful sentiment ever burst from patriotic lips, than that of the devoted Psalmist :-"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning," &c.

And to pass to the New Testament, we will let others decide whether any inference can be drawn from the example of Christ, when at a second risk of his life, he sought the welfare of his own countrymen, the Nazarenes; or when the hills of Judea echoed with his touching lamentation over the ill-fated Jerusalem; or whether Paul breathed a spirit of Patriotism, when he was ready to wish himself accursed from Christ, for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh. To say nothing of the charges given to the Apostles to preach the gospel, beginning at Jerusalem; or of the strain which runs throughout every portion of the Bible, relative to the peculiar claims of all the various relations of life-claims higher and weightier in proportion as those relations are more intimate; thus establishing beyond every shadow of doubt, that principle from which the duty of Patriotism must necessarily follow. Surely, if such examples as these have no bearing on the subject, then the most express commands might be set aside with impunity.

But we were endeavoring to prove that both Patriotism and Philanthropy might exist in the same heart and at the same time. And by Patriotism we mean, not the proud love of the Greek, the ambitious love of the Roman, or that selfish party passion of the present day, which is too often dignified with this high title; but "that Christian love, which, while it respects as sacred the rights and the welfare of every land-of every foreign individual-teaches us to manifest, within the limits of justice, special affection towards our own country, in proportion to the special ties that unite us to it."

It is true that some men exhibit one of these properties in a preëminent degree, while they manifest little or no evidence that they possess the other. But this is no proof that it does not exist, or at least may not be made to exist by proper cultivation. Its apparent nonexistence may be accounted for on the principle of taste or education. One of the characteristics of man, is a power to cultivate those faculties and properties for which he has a preference, whilst others are neglected.

The nature and constitution of the human mind admit of the same conclusion. The heart is capable of cherishing two or more objects at the same time; else where is the consistency that God should command us to love him with all the heart, and our neighbor as ourselves: implying love to at least three objects at the same time; viz. God, our neighbor, and ourselves.

If, then, Patriotism and Philanthropy be not inconsistent with each other, both can be cherished, in some degree, at the same time. But both spring from the same principle of benevolenee, and, as we have seen, both aim at the same great object, the promotion of human happiness in the world. They are only different plans for securing the greatest amount of good. The one looks at the world as composed of individuals, each of whom has a personal obligation to discharge

towards every other one over whom he either has or can have an influence. The other looks at it as made up of nations, which, like so many families, have rights of their own to protect, and domestic wants to provide for. Since, then, there is no discrepancy of design, but, on the contrary, a perfect harmony of interests and aims; there is no more inconsistency in cherishing both, than of favoring any two benevolent objects at the same time. One may receive more of our attention than the other, yet both find a place in our hearts.

Experience and observation also concur in testifying to the fact, that these two passions have frequently existed, to an eminent degree, in the same individual. Gen. Washington is acknowledged by all to stand foremost among patriots, whether of his own or any former age. Even his enemies feel compelled to yield assent to this. In all the vicissitudes of his public career, he manifested the most distinguished zeal for the welfare of his country, and ever labored most assiduously to promote its prosperity. And that this zeal was not the offspring of ambition, was fully evinced by all his actions, both public and private. Yet scarcely was he less distinguished as a Philanthropist. Not only did he exhibit all the sympathy of a kind father towards his suffering soldiers, often denying himself that he might administer to their necessities; but he ever held out the sceptre of mercy to a fallen enemy, sparing life whenever it was consistent with the safety of his country. And if history and tradition can be relied on, he was actuated by the same blessed spirit of love to Mankind in all the walks of his private life. If, then, these principles appear thus prominent in one individual, they may both exist in some degree in all, since the nature of mind is the same in all.

And inasmuch as we have seen that both are essential to the securing of the highest good, it becomes an imperative duty that every individual cultivate both, to some extent. The love of our race is the first rule of our being; it is the dictate of reason, of common sense, and, we may add, even of instinct. Without it happiness would no longer sojourn among men, and life become a burden not to be endured. The love of country, though comparatively less urgent in its claims, is too important to be disregarded. The utility of governments of some form, no reasonable man will call in question. Yet without this principle it would be impossible to sustain them. The bonds of society would be sundered, and the materials of which it is composed left to float at random amid the general desolation. Mankind, in separate families or clans, would wander unprotected among the wreck of ruined nations, and a Babel-like confusion reign throughout the world.

Doubtless some should make it their more immediate business to labor for the good of their country; but never should their zeal for this cause them to forget the duty they owe their fellow-men as individuals, or to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the distressed whom Providence may have thrown in their way. On the other hand, some classes of community should make it their principal aim to cultivate a spirit of Philanthropy. Yet even these should have so much knowledge of, and love for their country, as would enable them, in case of an emergency, to afford timely assistance for its relief.

And since the highest individual happiness depends upon the highest cultivation of every separate principle of benevolence, we shall in the end experience more of that blessedness, which is ever the legitimate result of conferring blessings on others. For it is, and ever must be, "more blessed to give than to receive;" otherwise God, who is the giver of all things, could never be the most blessed of all.

D.

MY COLLEGE FRIENDS.

NO. II.

THE TRIO.

"The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together; our virtues would be proud if our faults whipped them not."-All's Well that Ends Well.

"Florizel. Apprehend nothing but jollity."-Winter's Tale.

"Honi soit qui mal y pense."

THE first part of the melancholy Jacques's soliloquy is, mutatis mutandis, no bad description of college life; but not without such changes, for it is not true, as a general thing, that here, as in the larger world, men and women have their exits and their entrances. We are many of us players though, and each plays many parts. Some there are who "know what study is," and could tell you of their toil

"Through the hours of the sad midnight watch,

At tasks which seem a systematic curse

And course of bootless penance."

Others there are, in whose minds "the wee small hours ayont the twalve" are associated with anything but "brain sweat," as the poet calls thought, and who can say with Biron in the play,

"Oh! we have made a vow to study, Lords,

And in that vow we have forsworn our books."

And others still, who have attained the happy medium, and, holding to the idea that universal plodding will wear out the man, occasionally indulge in a flow of spirits, or, as Ovid calls it, "that joyous folly which unbends the mind." To which of these classes we whose acquaintance you now make belong, you, gentle reader, must judge—that is, if you are anxious to know.

On a warm afternoon in the summer of 18-, we three were quietly lounging on two beds, (sofas by courtesy,) in an upper room of old South Middle, lazily puffing our cigars and wondering what we should do to dissipate ennui, for Rhetoric had long since been voted a bore, and it was decidedly too hot to study anything else. Project after project had been started and rejected, and we were about to give up in